Conference changes

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I fully understand the geographical and other challenges. For many of us, we have understood the DIII landscape for 20, 25, or more years.

Yes. CNU has found themselves in a bit of a pickle that, bluntly, they, Salisbury, and others have helped create. They have made a conscious decision, which I certainly do not have a problem with, of making athletics a larger financial commitment than many of their peers. As a result, they started to find themselves less welcome in the USA South and eventually less welcome in the CAC to the point of being out on their own with two other institutions.

This isn't new to Division III.

St. Thomas, for similar reasons, has found itself out of the MIAC (though, to some degree those in that conference seem to be ignoring the others who have made the same financial decisions as UST). Stevenson in the MAC (former CAC member) is also one of those who has made significant financial decisions to stand out from the rest (though, needing a reliable football home was also a significant reason Stevenson left the CAC and won't return). And there are others we can point to throughout Division III.

The key is, while those decisions are made, relationships still have to be nurtured and massaged within conferences ... or one finds themselves suddenly without dance partners. Also, being state schools doesn't help. The CAC was the only dual-member conference, for the most part, in the region that those schools fit in (NEAC is just not a viable option for CNU, Salisbury, etc.; USA South has already indicated they are not interested). However, the CAC started to unravel when CUA and Goucher decided (for reasons I never felt legit) they couldn't compete and felt it was unfair to be in a conference with state schools (cop out). That was the first thread that just kept getting pulled ... no thanks, IMO, to conference commissioners who also couldn't seem to smooth things over with presidents and ADs who either didn't get it ... or wanted to leave their 'mark' as it where.

Personally, I think it is a cop-out when institutions leave for 'easier' conferences because they won't make the same commitments to athletics as others, but I respect that decision more than the one made in the MIAC of threatening to leave and then forcing out a school because institutions don't want to make the same commitments. That last example is just petty and stupid. At least schools in the Mid-Atlantic have freely admitted it isn't for them and gone elsewhere instead of trying to back-stab one of their own.

That all said ... why should a conference be given an AQ if they are going to make NO effort to live up to anything conferences normally do other than play a small, not-even fully invited tournament? That is what Pool B is designated for. Schools and conferences that don't have enough for an AQ or access to one. They all get to sit in Pool B and get the very first at-large bid(s) to the NCAA tournament. That's before all those who had access to AQs are even considered.

So essentially, CNU, Salisbury, Mary Washington have access to a bid to the NCAA tournament just as if it was an AQ. I rarely say this about other conferences, but the CAC is going to be fine with that structure PLUS they may still get at-large selections through the Pool C process after one of the three is selected in Pool B. The only problem will be scheduling and that I can appreciate will be challenging in the last 1/4 to 1/3 of sport seasons (for the most part). But access to the tournament isn't going to be a huge a deal as many may realize for the remaining CAC members whether they are part of the ACAA or not - they are getting in the tournaments with their best team(s).

[Gregory Sager]

Personally, I think it is a cop-out when institutions leave for 'easier' conferences because they won't make the same commitments to athletics as others, but I respect that decision more than the one made in the MIAC of threatening to leave and then forcing out a school because institutions don't want to make the same commitments. That last example is just petty and stupid. At least schools in the Mid-Atlantic have freely admitted it isn't for them and gone elsewhere instead of trying to back-stab one of their own.

As you know, there's more to it than that, Dave. The MIAC didn't jettison UST simply because "institutions don't want to make the same commitments." UST as an institution has morphed into something that doesn't resemble the other schools in the MIAC anymore; it's now a mid-sized regional university rather than a small liberal arts college, which means that in a sense the MIAC is following in the footsteps of those eastern leagues that don't want CNU or Salisbury because they have a different institutional model (in their case, one of institutional ownership and cost rather than institutional size and function). It's not a coincidence that the first thing bruited about by UST types upon the announcement of #Tomtoss was a jump to D1; indeed, there has been low-key speculation about such a jump going on for several years now in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. There's a certain logic to it, because UST's closest peers in an institutional sense are now the likes of Creighton, Loyola (IL), DePaul, and Marquette rather than St. Mary's (MN) or SJU/CSB.

The upshot of the matter is that institutional similarity tends to be as important, if not more, in the eyes of school presidents as athletic competitiveness when it comes to conference membership issues. I'm not saying at all that I agree with the actions taken by the MIAC's other institutions to oust UST. Personally, I think that there's a lot to dislike about the way that they handled it. I'm just saying that there's more to the issue than what you posted.

[Pat Coleman]

As you know, there's more to it than that, Dave. The MIAC didn't jettison UST simply because "institutions don't want to make the same commitments." UST as an institution has morphed into something that doesn't resemble the other schools in the MIAC anymore; it's now a mid-sized regional university rather than a small liberal arts college.

St. Thomas has been this size for decades, though. This is nothing new.

[Gregory Sager]

Yep. And the undercurrent of discontent about that was there for a long time as well. The fact that it took the MIAC so long to act upon it doesn't invalidate the argument. Again, though, I'm not taking the side of the other MIAC schools. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here by pointing out that there's more to the issue than what Dave said.

[smedindy]

Having lived up there - jealousy is part of it. St. Thomas raises a lot of money and has a lot of marketing in the Twin Cities, too.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yep. And the undercurrent of discontent about that was there for a long time as well. The fact that it took the MIAC so long to act upon it doesn't invalidate the argument. Again, though, I'm not taking the side of the other MIAC schools. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here by pointing out that there's more to the issue than what Dave said.

While there is a lot more to it... some of what is being claimed is also BS (some of what Pat has pointed out) and some of what is irrelevant. I was trying to boil it down to the basics.

[CNU85]

The fun part is that all of this is interesting. Over the course of the next several months, and most likely years, things will change. I'm looking forward to seeing how the folks who make decisions try to figure this out. I find that fascinating.....making decisions based on the best available facts at the time, then making more changes.

Let's see how this pans out!

[Gregory Sager]

Yep. And the undercurrent of discontent about that was there for a long time as well. The fact that it took the MIAC so long to act upon it doesn't invalidate the argument. Again, though, I'm not taking the side of the other MIAC schools. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here by pointing out that there's more to the issue than what Dave said.

While there is a lot more to it... some of what is being claimed is also BS (some of what Pat has pointed out) and some of what is irrelevant. I was trying to boil it down to the basics.

There's more to the basics than an unwillingness to keep up with UST's spending on athletics facilities, though.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yep. And the undercurrent of discontent about that was there for a long time as well. The fact that it took the MIAC so long to act upon it doesn't invalidate the argument. Again, though, I'm not taking the side of the other MIAC schools. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here by pointing out that there's more to the issue than what Dave said.

While there is a lot more to it... some of what is being claimed is also BS (some of what Pat has pointed out) and some of what is irrelevant. I was trying to boil it down to the basics.

There's more to the basics than an unwillingness to keep up with UST's spending on athletics facilities, though.

Maybe ... in my work behind the scenes I've found many of the "reasons" to not end up standing up to scrutiny. Thus why I also pointed out why they seem to ignore other schools spending. It is complex, but much of it is smoke and mirrors to a simple thing: success. That success is based on spending as well.

[Gregory Sager]

It is based upon spending, to some degree. And it's certainly based upon demonstrated success, too, given how lopsidedly UST has dominated the circuit over the past decade and a half in the league's all-sports standings. But school size does enter into it as well, in particular with regard to admissions.

The marketing of an institution of higher learning to prospective students these days is thoroughly tied to test scores and class rank. In the dog-eat-dog environment of modern higher education, admissions departments of schools that have any aspirations whatsoever to be perceived as "good schools" (i.e., possessing academic cachet) are very zealous to tout the statistics of their admitted freshmen, and very protective about keeping the test-score and class-rank averages of those admitted freshmen as high as possible. The schools of the MIAC, including UST, are no different.

Thus, admissions departments tend to be very sparing in terms of allowing special admits whose grades and/or test scores fall below what the department has calculated to be the acceptable mathematical threshold for maintaining those incoming-freshman averages. So the athletic department is only going to be allowed a very limited allotment of those special admits. But, since the special admits are deemed so by how they measure against the school's average, a larger school can bring in a larger number of special admits without adversely affecting the school's average than can a smaller school. In UST's case, since the school is two to three times the size of its fellow MIAC members, the athletic department can bring in two to three times the number of special admits of its MIAC rivals without hurting UST's average high-school test scores and class ranks. That gives the various Tommies teams a decided recruiting advantage within the MIAC.

[Pat Coleman]

Right, and for that to be a problem, there either has to be proof or just a healthy (unhealthy?) amount of assumption on a competitor's part.

I'd say, instead, "a decided potential recruiting advantage." 

[Gregory Sager]

Agreed.

[smedindy]

The marketing of an institution of higher learning to prospective students these days is thoroughly tied to test scores and class rank. In the dog-eat-dog environment of modern higher education, admissions departments of schools that have any aspirations whatsoever to be perceived as "good schools" (i.e., possessing academic cachet) are very zealous to tout the statistics of their admitted freshmen, and very protective about keeping the test-score and class-rank averages of those admitted freshmen as hih as possible. The schools of the MIAC, including UST, are no different.

Not necessarily. It depends on the institution, the mission, and the programs an institution offers. Even those who are aspirational to be a 'good' school many times market themselves in other ways than test scores and class rank. Many schools are now eschewing test scores. Class rank isn't necessarily correlated to success in college.

With many colleges now scrambling for students, trying to keep a sensible discount rate, and seeing state funding wither in many areas, marketing your niches is more important than marketing your elitism.

St. Thomas saw a great amount of $$ flowing in from donors. Their endowment is over $500 million now. Other MIAC schools have high endowments as well (Carleton, Macalester, St. Olaf). But there are a lot of have-nots (Hamline and Augsburg are under $100 million with Augsburg under $50 million). There's a big gap from even Gustavus ($161 million) to those schools. Those are the kinds of colleges that are going to have to get creative soon to keep $$ flowing in - either in fundraising or getting tuition dollars.

I remember I was consulting at a small college about 10 years ago when the final admission numbers were announced, and were about 100 students short of projection. My contract was terminated shortly thereafter since they needed to pinch pennies.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I've found endowments to give me completely different information than reality. In the Centennial, one of the highest endowments is Johns Hopkins ... no surprise. The other is Bryn Mawr. You can look at why that raises my eyebrows all the time. One of the lowest tends to be pretty competitive in the conference (I had to dive into the numbers for comparison reasons a few years ago).

I do think endowment money is helpful to some degree. As many have pointed out to me or others ... sometimes that endowment money is restricted on what it can be spent on. Other times the school chooses not to use it or not to use it for athletic-based efforts. There are a hundred reasons why endowment levels don't always lead to athletic (or other) success.

[smedindy]

For me, endowments mean that they can more easily attract students. Many times, endowment is geared toward scholarships (except maybe someplace like Hopkins or Carnegie Mellon which has a lot of research-based endowment).

So Carelton, if they wanted to, could get athletes by waving scholarship money at them. They don't choose to do that. But Hamline and Augsburg need to be more judicious.

There's a lot of interlocking issues involved.