Best D3 Conferences

[Pat Coleman]

If Division III wants its games on ESPN or some national outlet like CBS College Sports (I know, that's not the name anymore) then it will need to pay for the privilege, the way Division II did. D-III leadership hasn't seen this as a priority.

I agree there's more the NCAA could do to promote D-III. They already are doing more, but they are 14 years behind us (starting with D3hoops.com) and just coming to the party.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Excellent post, jknezek.

[edstone]

Pat regarding TV coverage of D-III, here's a story from the past that I suspect has long been forgotten by most people. I think it's interesting to note the teams involved, the announcing crews, and the reason for the coverage. I watched the Wittenberg v Baldwin-Wallace game back then and I was reminded of it by the recent comments about D-III on TV.
(Taken from Wikipedia . . .)
"With no NFL games to show on Sunday October 3, 1982 due to the strike, CBS decided to show all of its NCAA Division III games on a single Sunday afternoon in front of a mass audience. CBS also used their regular NFL crews (Pat Summerall and John Madden at Wittenberg–Baldwin-Wallace, Tom Brookshier and Wayne Walker at West Georgia–Millsaps, Tim Ryan and Johnny Morris at Wisconsin–Oshkosh – Wisconsin–Stout, and Dick Stockton and Roger Staubach at San Diego–Occidental) and showed The NFL Today instead of using their regular college football broadcasters."

[cludad]

The ncaa could show what true college sports is all about, not the product the put out there now.If you look at the graduation rates of the pac 12 most of these schools dont graduate half their players.(this is sort of a sore spot for me).I know money rules all and nobody is saying put all the games on but pick a handful of games a year. The ncaa imo has a big blck eye right now from all the junk going on now in d1 .I will say ,thank god for the internet games,and a big thank you to d3 boards.I think given a chance some new fans can be found,heck i used to think d3 was glorified hs,now i love it.As for promoting it, you have to probably live in ca. to understand what i mean.Jk i couldnt agree with you more about the money and contamination.As far as watching d1 school v d3 you should see the crap games we get on the west coast,give me a good ol d3 rivalry game any day.

[Gray Fox]

On my ATT-UVerse here in Dallas, I can pick up STO for Ohio sports I've seen some delayed games for Mt. Union and a couple of other teams (BW and ONU).  But these teams need little publicity in Ohio.

[Ralph Turner]

Let's look at the niche that D-III fills in higher education...

Let's look at the "average" 500-student high schools graduating class.

Twenty percent are athletes in the class...with arbitrary breakdown trying to allocate for multiple sport athletes.

20 football,
10 basketball men
10 baseball,
10 XC and T&F men
10 XC and T&F women
20 softball + Volleyball + basketball women (some multiple sport athletes here.)
10 tennis men and women
10 golf men and women/ swimming.

Half of these athletes are good enough to go to D-III as student-athletes.

These 50 students are the prime candidates for D-III

Another 100 students in the class are interested in a D-III education.

You almost have the standard breakdown of athletes in the matriculating classes in D-III institutions.

Of the 500 in the graduating, the other 350 will go to a local community college, to technical school, the military, getting a job, or to D-I state school.  In those 350, almost no athletes.  The scholarship athletes will go D-1, D-II or NAIA.

These athletes need to be "recruited".  Their financial aid profile will mirror the non-athletes who are also "recruited".

Respectfully, the recruiting issue depends on how much the university sees the student athlete as a good candidate to attend their institution.

[K-Mack]

Pardon me for not having the broad knowledge that some have regarding the term "haters." It's one of those inadequacies I will try to remedy. My life will be fuller for it.

My only point was that labelling people as haters, relieves the name caller from actually engaging in an argument on the merits of that argument. Again, mea culpa.

True.

And now you know what a hater is. Someone who doesn't have their own vision, but instead expends all their energy hating on yours

[K-Mack]

Well yes and no.

There is certainly more that can be done to promote the game without having TV money ruin it. As that's currently where we fit in, I'm happy there's a void there, but at the same time, if there were more support, or if we could finance our grand dreams, then I could do this full time.

It's true that D-III as currently constructed is not a moneymaker. It doesn't make sense for ESPN to throw weight behind it, but then again it doesn't make much sense to cover North Texas or San Jose State or Eastern Michigan from a big-time ratings standpoint either.

The one truism I've picked up in 12 or 14 years covering D-III is that people who are exposed to it tend to like it. I actually wouldn't watch a random SEC game over a random D-III game, but I'm probably in the minority. But I do know that as parents, players, fans and athletes get exposed to it, they seem to be willing to trade a little bit of the athletic aesthetic (i.e. watching bigger-faster-stronger athletes in giant stadiums) for a chance to enjoy the game and be a part of the smaller community. Make it too big, and you no longer have the things that endear it to people ... the access to the athletes, the athletes without a sense of entitlement, the student-athlete, etc.

Same time, there are some ways the game could be promoted with a minimal resource commitment. We have discussed this with the NCAA and gotten good feedback, so I'm not complaining.

There are certainly cost-effective ways we could open up D-III to more people, or even just better serve the people who are already D-III fans. Broadcast more than 1 or 3 playoff games a year. Keep a national, easily accessible "On Demand" archive of streamed online games. (I think I just came up with my next D3.com idea) ...

TV exposure most certainly would help, for all the reasons it helps big schools, but also just to open people's eyes to the idea that there's good football (and bad) being played in small, academically-focused atmospheres, and the options for a HS athlete are not D1 or bust. If it were done in moderation -- and with 239 schools, it would be hard to overdo it -- you could still throw someone the occasional bone without making them a slave to TV money, or making them look at football as a business and not an extension of the classroom.

Well thought out post on your part. Enjoyed it.

What could ESPN or the NCAA possibly gain by putting D3 sports on tv? There isn't much of a following outside of a small clique of former coaches, players, and alumni for each school. Most of the schools are small, and very few people outside former players have any real affinity for the teams after graduation. I'm proud of W&L when it gets recognized as a national liberal arts school, and I'm happy when the teams play well, but if you ask which I prefer, it's the education accolades.

If there is a choice on TV between an SEC game between 2 teams I don't care about, or a D3 game involving 2 teams I don't care about (pretty much any game but a W&L game), guess which one I'm going to watch? Like it or not, the SEC game is going to be better athlete-student football. The D3 game is probably full of better student-athletes, but that doesn't make it comparably entertaining. I think the schools that are working hard at putting games on the internet so interested parties can watch are doing the best things possible. I know every W&L home game this year can be watched live, and I've caught most of them. If I was a coach, I'd sure mention that to mom and dad. Want to watch your kid but can't make the drive to Lexington? No problem. But is the next door neighbor, with no connection to W&L, going to flip to ESPN5 to watch W&L play Randolph-Macon? Can't see that happening.

TV brings money and pressure. Two things I didn't want to see infiltrate h.s. sports, too late thanks to ESPN and the 1000s of cable channels that now need programming, and two things I definitely don't want contaminating the D3 game. I also don't see the point of trying to "promote" D3. If you are convincing kids to come get the best education possible, and maybe start versus being a practice player at a big school, I don't see how being on TV helps with that argument.

Of course, I come from the mid-atlantic and D3 doesn't have an unknown quality about it. Most kids in the mid-atlantic know they aren't going to play D1 by the time they are sophomores in h.s. and D3 becomes a way to keep playing the game they love at the best school they can go to. I think the "For the Love of the Game" t-shirts say it all. That's the point of D3, not trying to make teams into TV commodities.

[cludad]

K-mack well put and keep the ideas flowing, i like them

[jknezek]

The ncaa could show what true college sports is all about, not the product the put out there now.If you look at the graduation rates of the pac 12 most of these schools dont graduate half their players.

Interesting point that I completely agree with. D3 is the original idea behind college athletics, but that concept went out the window long before now. If you look at a team like Sewanee, they gave up on playing in the SEC in the very first facilities boom back in the 40s when it became impractical for a small school to play with the big boys. Other schools, like W&L, held on until the 50s playing the big boys for tradition's sake and getting pounded. Then W&L dropped big time football because of a massive cheating scandal at a school founded on the principals of honor (might be a nice story for an ATN or ATR Mid Atlantic column to revisit that history, I believe W&L scrapped the team for 2 years in punishment).

But the NCAA has nothing to gain, and everything to lose by pointing out that the game currently played at D1 consists of essentially an inexpensive and exploitative farm system for the pros. I just don't see them using that as a hook for pushing more D3 sports on TV. A little counterproductive for an organization devoted to amateur "student-athletes".

As for K-Mack... man I love your stuff and you do a great job. I really love that you have a similar story to mine. But while you may watch a good D3 game over a bad D1 game, well... you aren't exactly a representative sample given your vested interest in D3. The fact remains that North Texas, as cruddy as they may be year in and year out, is going to have a bigger alumni base and fan pool than almost any D3 school (WIAC and NJAC schools and other minor exceptions ignored here). UNT does have 36,000 current students and I believe they average around 20K at a home game. I don't think anyone in the D3 universe gets anywhere near that.

There are hundreds of D3 schools dotted across the country playing in front of a couple hundred fans every Saturday while thousands within walking distance of the stadiums sit at home watching big games on TV. Americans like to watch the top levels. It's why AAA baseball is never on national tv, the WNBA loses money, and the English Premier League is followed way better than MLS in the U.S. Three very different examples, but all prove the same point.

I guess I'm just in the camp that D3 is darn good the way it is. While a lot of people go to State U and want to convince their kids to go to State U, there are always going to be a lot of kids that decide they enjoy playing sports and want a few more years, and it isn't going to happen at State U. Those kids are going to find D3 and those are the kids we want to find D3.

I know this will put me way into the minority, but I wouldn't have a problem if D3 completely banned active recruiting altogether. Let the kids find the best schools for them and get in contact with the coaches and athletic departments. Then you'll really know they are playing solely for "The Love of the Game".

[ExTartanPlayer]

Great discussion, guys.  Man, so much I want to comment on here.

D3 is the original idea behind college athletics, but that concept went out the window long before now. If you look at a team like Sewanee, they gave up on playing in the SEC in the very first facilities boom back in the 40s when it became impractical for a small school to play with the big boys. Other schools, like W&L, held on until the 50s playing the big boys for tradition's sake...

Carnegie Mellon is another Division III school that "used to" play bigtime football in the 1920's and 1930's until they experienced the same things that you reference here.  The administration chose to deemphasize athletics (and given my current worldview, it was absolutely the right choice - it's remarkable how well the old administrators read the future, considering the current state of Division I athletics). 

There are hundreds of D3 schools dotted across the country playing in front of a couple hundred fans every Saturday while thousands within walking distance of the stadiums sit at home watching big games on TV. Americans like to watch the top levels. It's why AAA baseball is never on national tv, the WNBA loses money, and the English Premier League is followed way better than MLS in the U.S. Three very different examples, but all prove the same point.

Love these examples, and it proves your point very well.  Another one that I can think of is the fact that the UFL is on the verge of folding (despite filling the rosters with former NFL coaches and guys that at least got a sniff from the NFL - if you put UFL guys into NFL team uniforms and had them play a game, the average fan could scarcely tell the difference).

I guess I'm just in the camp that D3 is darn good the way it is. While a lot of people go to State U and want to convince their kids to go to State U, there are always going to be a lot of kids that decide they enjoy playing sports and want a few more years, and it isn't going to happen at State U. Those kids are going to find D3 and those are the kids we want to find D3.

I know this will put me way into the minority, but I wouldn't have a problem if D3 completely banned active recruiting altogether. Let the kids find the best schools for them and get in contact with the coaches and athletic departments. Then you'll really know they are playing solely for "The Love of the Game".

I've argued a similar before with a few disgruntled Ivy League alumni that are pushing to get the Ivies to participate in the playoffs.  What was so bad about the really old-fashioned days when teams were just made up of kids that happened to attend the school?  Why does everyone have to be in the playoffs and/or on TV?

However, jknezek, I think it's hard to go to the extreme of banning recruiting altogether in Division III (before we even get to the nightmare of how to enforce such a rule), and I think that doing so would have some negative consequences as well.  For example, some kids (like cludad's son) might miss out on the opportunity to play small-college ball simply because they never heard of the school, and they might ALSO miss out on academic opportunities at such institutions.

When I was in school, I had a work-study job calling prospective recruits, and I know that several of them either hadn't heard of CMU or were unaware that we had a football program.  Without Division III recruiting, few (if any) of them would end up at CMU, perhaps attending their local Big State U instead.

One other point in defense of D-3 recruiting is that (from my experience) it's often more about the academic opportunities and available job network than it is about X's and O's.  I know that I certainly cared about the quality of the football program, but it wasn't a top priority.  In fact, I turned down the football program that I thought was trending upward at the time (Rochester) to attend one that seemed stuck in neutral (CMU) because I genuinely thought CMU was a better academic fit.  Ironically, it turned out that CMU fared much better than Rochy during my four years...I like to think it was my decision that sparked the change!

[Pat Coleman]

But the NCAA has nothing to gain, and everything to lose by pointing out that the game currently played at D1 consists of essentially an inexpensive and exploitative farm system for the pros. I just don't see them using that as a hook for pushing more D3 sports on TV. A little counterproductive for an organization devoted to amateur "student-athletes".

Ding-ding! This is so true. They are not going to promote D3 by running down other divisions.

+1

[jknezek]

However, jknezek, I think it's hard to go to the extreme of banning recruiting altogether in Division III (before we even get to the nightmare of how to enforce such a rule), and I think that doing so would have some negative consequences as well.  For example, some kids (like cludad's son) might miss out on the opportunity to play small-college ball simply because they never heard of the school, and they might ALSO miss out on academic opportunities at such institutions.

I don't mind the recruiting, I just wouldn't be upset if they banned it. There are thousands of books on how to choose a college listing and ranking every school in the country by every idiotic metric you can imagine. Just head to a Barnes and Nobles, your local municpal or h.s. library, or log on to the internet. Before junior year of h.s. I had never heard of W&L and, at the time, I was the only person from my high school to ever apply. So how did I find it? I opened up a book and looked for very good small liberal arts colleges within 400 miles heading south of my home.

We visited the school and I fell in love. Met the soccer coach on the first visit and he showed some interest in me but he point blank told me I had to get in to the school first, which had nothing to do with him, and then he'd worry about if I could play. I've always thought that is how D3 should work. I found a great school that fit my requirements, got into the school on my own merits, and then had a coach tell me I was probably good enough to play if I kept working at it on the bench for a couple years.

I'm not saying W&L doesn't work harder for kids that are in traditional strongholds (private school lacrosse or tennis players for example), but I do believe the way I went to school should be the model for D3. If you don't care enough to crack the books and find the best fit school for you... well, I have limited sympathy. There are way too many resources available to help h.s. kids figure this out these days. Having coaches out trying to convince kids that have never heard of your school to show because they'd like to see you play D3 sports... that seems a little backward to me.

[cludad]

This chat has been wonderful,thank you all

[K-Mack]

But while you may watch a good D3 game over a bad D1 game, well... you aren't exactly a representative sample given your vested interest in D3. The fact remains that North Texas, as cruddy as they may be year in and year out, is going to have a bigger alumni base and fan pool than almost any D3 school (WIAC and NJAC schools and other minor exceptions ignored here). UNT does have 36,000 current students and I believe they average around 20K at a home game. I don't think anyone in the D3 universe gets anywhere near that.

All true.

There are only a smattering of 10,000+ games ever in Division III. Like less than 40.

The way I explain it is that people fall into D3 by living in the town, being somehow affliated with the school or a person who plays for or coaches the team. People can grow up 175 miles from Tuscaloosa and not have had a person in their family go to college, and still be die-hard Alabama fans. Because it's the thing to do. It's the local pro team. Not sure it's because of exposure alone, or size of alumni base alone, but working in tandem, that really helps. As the pipeline to pros does as well.

The thing I think you rarely see is someone getting into D-III and then hating it. People almost always seem to be willing to trade a few inches and tenths of a second on the 40 time for the genuineness of effort and accessibility etc.