Future of Division III

[Ralph Turner]

Analysis

Having read the article and reviewed the surveys, (I'm sorry, but) it seems that there is much hubris and elitist's anger that the membership did not do what the experts thought was in the best interest of those poor souls who don't know what is good for them.

We now have a solid number of those institutions that want this change...15% (of 96% of 440).  That is roughly 60 schools and very far short of the 150 needed for a viable sub-division.  Having been rebuffed so thoroughly, they will only re-double their efforts, knowing that they are a long way from where they want to be.  They will not go away.

I do not believe that this analysis was written by someone who does not share some of these "secessionist" views.  The writer (Mr Jack Copeland) takes great pains to enumerate each of the minor differences that exist inside so diverse a membership, when the overwhelming message was "Don't break up Division III".

But more direct consequences of membership growth -- which research indicates will result in a 480-member division by 2020 at the current rate of expansion -- will be less easy to ignore. That certainly was the parting warning from the now-disbanded Division III working group, which stated that continuing growth not only might aggravate philosophical differences, but make it increasingly difficult to maintain current levels of championships access and national office services.

Let's address those two problems.  Is current access to the championships impaired by the current membership.  I see that growth of conferences as funneling the teams into the championship.  Do we have disgruntled presidents who are not getting the at-large bids to keep with the Jones' (or the Williams') in the Directors' Cup?  I have documented that Pool B is going away.  The Division can grow to 64 conferences of 9 members each (576 schools) and still have access to playoffs in the parameters outlined by the survey.  576 schools would carry the NCAA to 2030 at more-than-current growth rates.  The seniors of 2030 are only being born this year.

National office services...what services are necessary to the execution of the championships versus what are proverbial "admiral's yacht"?  Corporate America and families pare extravagances that are not vital to the continued goals on a regular basis.  Should not "best practices" be adopted to eliminate waste and duplication inside the NCAA?

And what are we to make of this comment?  Were they not listening when they began this (D-IV) process?

"It's the task of leadership to provide information and then listen," said Valerie Cushman, former Division III Management Council chair and a member of the Division III working group. "We now must listen to what the membership is saying, while continuing to educate about the issues."

IMHO, the "secessionists" will re-consider their efforts and continue the legislative efforts to drive the Division where they want it to go.

[Ralph Turner]

Holland MI Sentinel article about the D-IV vote.

The Hope AD and the MIAA Commissioner talk about their strong unified "anti-D-IV" stance.

"We didn't feel like there was a need for change," Smith said. "We felt the NCAA was looking for a solution when they couldn't identify the problem." -- Hope College AD Ray Smith

"I think the MIAA actually was very much a catalyst," Neilson said. "We were in unanimous opposition. We put together a position paper and forwarded it to the two groups studying this issue immediately before the NCAA convention in December. It got the ball rolling." -- MIAA Commissioner David Neilson

Thanks to Flying Dutch Fan for posting this link on the MIAA Men's Board

[Titan Q]

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/04/12/usports/doc48000a48128c2981695661.txt

Illinois Wesleyan was among the responding schools that opposed the split, athletic director Dennie Bridges said.

"Our position is that even though the division is growing and that there are differing opinions on some issues that we can and should stay together and work out our differences," Bridges said.

[frank uible]

What colleges comprised the 15% minority?

[Gregory Sager]

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/04/12/usports/doc48000a48128c2981695661.txt

Illinois Wesleyan was among the responding schools that opposed the split, athletic director Dennie Bridges said.

"Our position is that even though the division is growing and that there are differing opinions on some issues that we can and should stay together and work out our differences," Bridges said.

Prior to the vote I was informed by administrators from two different CCIW schools that the representatives of the league's eight schools would unanimously vote against the split. This must've come as a disappointment to the secessionists within the D3 ranks, since the CCIW had been identified by the NCAA's data as a likely "D4 candidate" league.

[Pat Coleman]

As was the WIAC. It was laughable data.

[luvdahoops]

What colleges comprised the 15% minority?

I guarantee you that it was the PRESIDENTS of those colleges in the 15% minority that were interested.  No one can name a single athletic administrator at ANY Division III school that favored subdivision.  It is about presidential ego and wanting to be perceived as elite.  Apparently there are about 60 presidents who fit that category.

[Ralph Turner]

What colleges comprised the 15% minority?

I guarantee you that it was the PRESIDENTS of those colleges in the 15% minority that were interested.  No one can name a single athletic administrator at ANY Division III school that favored subdivision.  It is about presidential ego and wanting to be perceived as elite.  Apparently there are about 60 presidents who fit that category.

As we have reviewed the news reports after the meetings, the D-IV document assumptions from the meeting and the preceding year, and the conference-sponsored position papers, e.g., the Capital AC and the MIAC, we have heard that the CCIW did not go for the split, and the MIAA had grave reservations.  We know that Earlham and Southwestern TX presidents spoke favorably, though.

I wonder if that "60" consisted of 40 schools that wanted to get stricter, e.g, the D-IV provisions and another 20 schools actually wanted to use this vote as a chance to move to something different, e.g., dramatically less restrictive.

[Ralph Turner]

Interesting report on Division I spending, especially FBS and FCS Football spending

Spending  Report

[Titan Q]

2008 NAIA State of the Association Address...

http://naia.cstv.com/member-services/2008NAIAStateoftheAssociationAddress.htm

As we continue to carve our niche, as we stay in our lane, we also are in a position to explore our relationship with the NCAA, to learn from them and potentially take advantage of new resources. Before I talk about the specifics of those conversations, let's retrace the reasons why these conversations are vital to the NAIA's interests.

The perception has been that the NCAA is going to do something to the NAIA, and that we only can stand by, wring our hands about what the NCAA may intend, essentially staying in a passive, reactive posture, allowing others at the conference and national levels to drive the agenda.

This approach – allowing ourselves simply to be acted upon – is a mistake.  We will be hurt and weakened as an association. If we allow these conversations to be conducted in the back channels, the dynamics shaped primarily by the individual actions and small pockets of self interest at the conference level, we will have only ourselves to blame. If we wish to predict the future, we must shape it. We must be unafraid to engage it.

As a result, we have worked purposefully and in a sustained way in the last two years to engage the NCAA directly, to state its intentions, its position with regard to the NAIA in intercollegiate athletics, to help the NCAA gain a better understanding of the unique character of the NAIA, to make clear the implications of various NCAA policies – in short, to create intentional discussion with the NCAA about the interests and agenda of the NAIA.

The result has been a sustained, meaningful and important dialogue between the NCAA and NAIA on a whole range of issues of mutual concern. Those conversations began at the level of senior members of the two national office staffs (including Myles Brand and myself), and in recent months the circle has extended to include several presidents representing the NCAA's three divisions and a similar number from the NAIA.

The results have been encouraging – and in some respect intriguing.

At this point, each association has committed to support one another publicly and continue to share information. In addition, senior staffs will analyze various programmatic partnerships, including, but not limited to, encouraging competition between NAIA and Division II and Division III members, combining catastrophic insurance plans, sharing resources related to eligibility certification and letter of intent and creating joint "academies" for gender equity, leadership, character and inclusion.  These specific partnerships will move forward only if the benefits to each association justify a partnership.

As we explore these specific joint programs, we also will continue to discuss the NAIA/NCAA relationship. Representatives of both organizations agree that we should explore all means by which the NAIA and NCAA can work together for the mutual benefit of our two associations and the common good of intercollegiate athletics and the student-athletes we serve. We have a window of opportunity to work with the leadership of the NCAA to develop alternatives. We need to be explicit about how we work together and put the conversation into the context of where we want to be in ten to fifteen years.  In other words, how can the NAIA and NCAA create a landscape that benefits all intercollegiate student-athletes?

As we continue our discussions with the NCAA, we want your input. Help us examine the relationship as it currently exists and where you would like to see it go. What are the specific benefits to the NAIA and our members if we join forces in specific areas? How do we best partner with them and retain our identity?

My final comments on our relationship with the NCAA is that you need to know that representatives of the COP have made it clear in every discussion that retaining our identity, keeping the NAIA in tact, is a priority. NCAA representatives understand our position and are willing to proceed.

[Ralph Turner]

Interesting quote from Titan Q's post...

As a tangible indicator that our plan is resonating with people, we have welcomed 11 new members into the NAIA in 2007-08. New members include: Indiana University East, Life University (Ga.), St. Catherine College (Ky.), Soka University (Calif.), Ave Maria University (Fla.), Cincinnati Christian College (Ohio), Kentucky Christian University, University of Maine, Presque Isle, College of Santa Fe (N.M), Southeastern University (Fla.), Talladega College (Ala.).

+1 Titan! 

[Mr. Ypsi]

Aaarrgghh!!!  They can't take UMPI away from us!

On certain boards, there goes half the comic relief!

[ADL70]

NAIA is losing Ohio Dominican which is beginning the exploratory period for joining DII.

[Gregory Sager]

Interesting quote from Titan Q's post...

As a tangible indicator that our plan is resonating with people, we have welcomed 11 new members into the NAIA in 2007-08. New members include: Indiana University East, Life University (Ga.), St. Catherine College (Ky.), Soka University (Calif.), Ave Maria University (Fla.), Cincinnati Christian College (Ohio), Kentucky Christian University, University of Maine, Presque Isle, College of Santa Fe (N.M), Southeastern University (Fla.), Talladega College (Ala.).

+1 Titan! 

Life University is an interesting story. A Georgia institution primarily designed to be a chiropractic training college, it won the NAIA-1 championships in men's basketball in 1997, 1999, and 2000, and finished second in 1994. However, the school discontinued its membership in the NAIA at some point in this decade, and is only now being readmitted. I'm not sure why, but it might have something to do with the accreditation crisis that resulted in the school temporarily losing its certification from America's guild of chiropractors back in 2002.

Life is also one of only two schools in the U.S. that offers rugby as a men's varsity sport rather than as a club sport (along with Cal-Berkeley), and it's the only one of the two that offers athletic scholarships to rugby players.

Soka University, which is entering the NAIA this year alongside Life and our favorite d3hoops.com geographical punchline UMPI, is to the best of my knowledge the only Buddhist-oriented institution of higher learning in the United States.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Soka University, which is entering the NAIA this year alongside Life and our favorite d3hoops.com geographical punchline UMPI, is to the best of my knowledge the only Buddhist-oriented institution of higher learning in the United States.

What about the Transcendental Meditation college in Iowa?  I know its not exactly Buddhist anymore, but it's based in Buddhism, right?