Division III Schools With Division I Programs?

[MUCheats]

Here's a question for debate:  Should Division III schools be allowed to have Division I athletic programs?  I know that for all intents and purposes this issue has been "settled," but I'm wondering if it should be looked into further. 

Consider Johns Hopkins lacrosse.  For those who follow the sport, you'll note that the Blue Jays are on national television just about every weekend in the spring.  The amount of revenue their lacrosse program produces is probably enough to fund a large chunk of their athletic department.

Some more background:  About two decades ago, a number of Division I schools playing Division III football were kicked out of DIII.  The rationale was, in part, that their other high level (DI) programs gave them an unfair advantage when it came to recruiting and funding their football teams. 

So here we are today, in what I believe is a similar situation, where Hopkins' lacrosse and Colorado College's hockey programs give them publicity and revenue that other Division III colleges do not have access to.  Now the resolution that was reach a few years ago was that all Division III schools were allowed to have one male and one female "showcase" program play at the Division I level.  That part seems fair to me.  Now the part that seems a bit unfair is that these schools would not be allowed to offer athletic scholarships, while a select few (Hopkins lacrosse, CC hockey, and about a half dozen others) would be "grandfathered" in and allowed to continue offering Division I programs with full athletic scholarships.  Reality is that even with athletic scholarships and years of development, few programs will ever approach what Hopkins has in lacrosse and CC has in hockey.  That said, if a DIII school wanting to offer a DI showcase program in either of those sports is to even have a chance to legitimately try to compete with JHU or CC, how is it expected to do so without the possibility of offering scholarships?

I apologize in advance if I'm beating a dead horse or if I'm revisiting an issue that most have considered dead.  I just don't think the playing field is level and that something should be done about it.  I think the option that would be most fair to everyone would be to allow all Division III schools the opportunity to have one showcase athletic program play at the Division I level with scholarships.  Doing so probably creates a climate that already goes against the spirit of what Division III stands for, but don't we really pretty much already have that when we have DIII schools that are currently giving out athletic scholarships?

This issue may also arise again if we see a Division III split.  Considering where I believe JHU and CC would be going under such a circumstance, would the new "academic" Division III-AA (or whatever it may be called) look favorably upon them offering athletic scholarships?

[mattvsmith]

I'm not sure if it's a dead horse yet or not, so I'll reply.

I'd like to see the D-I program at D-III schools be loosed from the requirements regarding scholarships.  It makes it very difficult to compete for D-I athletes, but the team is still too good for D-III--so it's the worst of both worlds.  It would stink for the D-III opponents, too, because the team that ought to be D-I is continually kicking other teams into the ground.

Other than Hopkins, Hobart is a good example.

Hobart is about $50,000 a year now, just as Cornell and SU.  But those schools can offer kids and their families some relief.  Not so, for Hobart.  If Hobart were able to offer scholarships it would allow it to get students of nearly the same caliber.  Frankly, I don't think Hobart would be the National Champs in D-I even with scholarships, but at least it might be a perennial powerhouse again instead of good, but not great.

Some would say that Hobart should go back to D-III in Lax, then.  But would that be fair for D-III schools.  Hobart was basically to Lax what Mount Union is to football.  How fun is it to go into a season already knowing who will win the National Championship.  It's more interesting to see who the #2 team is going to be.  And that's not a whole lot of fun.  Even as a Hobart fan and alumnus, it was not much fun to see Hobart win the NCAA 12 out of 14 years.  Sounds great, but in The Rev's mind, it is always more fun o have an unknown quantity thrown in the mix to stir things up.

The grandfathering bit bothers me, too.  If Hopkins couldn't pay their kids to go there, they would soon go by the way of Hobart.  But rather than drag Hopkins down, i'd rather see the rules loosened, so that other teams can rise up.

[Ralph Turner]

Colorado College Men's D-1 Ice Hockey (and Women's D-1 Soccer) were saved at the expense of Men's Football and Women's softball and water polo.

The reason given?  Too expensive.

The pessimists around the Colorado College community think that football is dead, at least as long as Richard Celeste is president.

[Jonny Utah]

Colorado College Men's D-1 Ice Hockey (and Women's D-1 Soccer) were saved at the expense of Men's Football and Women's softball and water polo.

The reason given?  Too expensive.

The pessimists around the Colorado College community think that football is dead, at least as long as Richard Celeste is president.

You also have to figure in where the schools choose to invest their money. 

MIT could build a 20 million dollar d3 football stadium and another 10 million on football facililities without blinking an eye.  And that money wouldn't come from any d1 sports.

And even if the University of Texas wanted to spend all the football money on just football, the school has enough money to spend on other sports if they wanted to.

If the State of Massachusetts wanted to spend all of their money on Framingham State football, and eliminate other programs, they could do that.  How much money would that save?  How much money does the State of Massachusetts have?  Cortland State put up a nice multi-million dollar facility without d1 lacrosse funding anything.   

And are we sure John Hopkins Lax really "makes" money?  Most d1 programs have 45-65 players on rosters and Im not sure how many scholorship players are included on that.  Do students have to pay for games at JHU?  I don't think they do at Umass.

[Ron Boerger]

I don't think D3 schools should be allowed to have any D1 programs, much less allow all D3 programs to sponsor a D1 sport.  The fact that the D3 membership has voted to allow only these few exceptions (I think there are a total of eight D3 schools with one or more D1 sports) seems to prove it unlikely that the trend will be reversed.  

Schools like JHU have enough money in their endowment ($2.1 billion at the end of 2008, probably up 10-20% since then) that any funds raised by LaX are miniscule in comparison, if not in fact.   And as far as being able to raise enough funds from a D1 sport to pay for tuition - fuggetabout it.  The majority of D1 programs don't make money, and that's with the huge cash cow sports of football and basketball.   A small school with a two D1 sports (required by Title IX) isn't going to come close to breaking even ... so you are spending precious funds for a purpose counter to the school's reason for existence.

Scholarship sports aren't what D3 is all about, and any effort to change that should be looked at with a jaundiced eye.    Why should you in effect pay people to play sports when there are plenty of student athletes willing to pay for the privilege, *and* get an education in the process?  

[Ron Boerger]

And in a great bit of coincidental timing, here are the latest NCAA medians stating how much each D1 (non-football) program costs (net of revenues and expenses).   Source:  2004-08 NCAA® REVENUES AND EXPENSES OF DIVISION I INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS PROGRAMS REPORT (thanks to Ralph for posting on the Future of D3 thread).

(as an aside, the typical D1 ice hockey program nets the school a median loss of $680K - which, combined with the average women's water polo losses of $192K would have funded the now-defunct Colorado College programs pretty easily.)  

[smedindy]

The issue with hockey is two-fold:

1. Tradition at schools like Colorado College, RPI, St. Lawrence, Clarkson, and Union have had major college hockey for a while. (Union since 1991). Those schools have long been part of the tradition of college hockey and to dump D-1 hockey would be a big blow to those programs, the fans, and the fans of college hockey.

Colorado College drew over 5,500 fans for each of its first two games against Northeastern this year. Clarkson over 3,300 for its two games against Michigan State (capacity 3,000). Union was at almost 90% capacity against Maine for its two home games. For D-1 hockey to work, you need butts in seats.

2. The NCAA needs as many D-1 hockey schools at it can get so that the NCAA tourney isn't some glorified conference invitational. The Frozen Four is getting some traction, and to yank some traditional D-1 schools away from it would hurt the tourney.

I am a D-3 fan, but also a college hockey fan. The 18 scholarships and other trappings didn't kill football at Colorado College.  I would bet there would be a large uproar at CC from the community, alumni, etc. that the host of the first 10 NCAA college hockey tournaments, 2 time NCAA champs, and one of the founders of the WCHA were suddenly going D-3 or dropping hockey all together.

Yes, football was at CC since the 1800's. And it was a shame that they dropped it. But at least there are revenues in D-1 hockey. And that's, sadly, the name of that tune these days.

[MUCheats]

So if we agree that forcing the DI schools in hockey and lacrosse to drop down to DIII is not an option, why not allow other DIII schools to decide for themselves whether or not to offer a DI showcase program?  I understand the DI tradition of hockey and lacrosse at schools like Colorado College, Clarkson, John Hopkins, etc., but it sounds like people are trying to have it both ways here.  What we currently have is a double-standard, we don't want to hurt the established tradition of certain sports at these schools, but we still want to maintain the spirit of the mission of DIII athletics?  Something's gotta give.

[Knightstalker]

So if we agree that forcing the DI schools in hockey and lacrosse to drop down to DIII is not an option, why not allow other DIII schools to decide for themselves whether or not to offer a DI showcase program?  I understand the DI tradition of hockey and lacrosse at schools like Colorado College, Clarkson, John Hopkins, etc., but it sounds like people are trying to have it both ways here.  What we currently have is a double-standard, we don't want to hurt the established tradition of certain sports at these schools, but we still want to maintain the spirit of the mission of DIII athletics?  Something's gotta give.

That is why it is called a grandfather clause.  These were all programs that had existing DI programs in the respective sports before the NCAA changed the rules about all sports being the same division.  They are not going to change the rules, it will and did lead to abuse.  The NCAA is now checking on Financial Aid compliance to ensure that athletic departments are not abusing the scholarships and aid available to DIII athletes.  The NCAA has taken positive steps in recent years to ensure that we have some real student athletes at our schools.

[Ralph Turner]

So if we agree that forcing the DI schools in hockey and lacrosse to drop down to DIII is not an option, why not allow other DIII schools to decide for themselves whether or not to offer a DI showcase program?  I understand the DI tradition of hockey and lacrosse at schools like Colorado College, Clarkson, John Hopkins, etc., but it sounds like people are trying to have it both ways here.  What we currently have is a double-standard, we don't want to hurt the established tradition of certain sports at these schools, but we still want to maintain the spirit of the mission of DIII athletics?  Something's gotta give.

Why does something have to give?

This compromise have has been years in the making.  As I understand it, a D-1 Lacrosse player at JHU cannot run tack track or play football.  A D1 women's soccer player at Colorado College cannot be a D-III swimmer.

When abuses arose in the previous arrangement, the abuses were addressed.

Should we see abuses in the current arrangment arrangement at a JHU or a Hobart or a Coloardo Colorado College, then we can see if the Division can police itself.

If you have evidence that the Division has failed to do that, then these boards will make a good place for that discussion to occur.  


Basically saying what Knightstalker said and he lives closer to the area where ths this issue is occurring than I.


Wow!  What an ugly post!  ARRRGGGGHHHHHHH!

Corrections respectfully submitted...

[MUCheats]

So if we agree that forcing the DI schools in hockey and lacrosse to drop down to DIII is not an option, why not allow other DIII schools to decide for themselves whether or not to offer a DI showcase program?  I understand the DI tradition of hockey and lacrosse at schools like Colorado College, Clarkson, John Hopkins, etc., but it sounds like people are trying to have it both ways here.  What we currently have is a double-standard, we don't want to hurt the established tradition of certain sports at these schools, but we still want to maintain the spirit of the mission of DIII athletics?  Something's gotta give.

That is why it is called a grandfather clause.  These were all programs that had existing DI programs in the respective sports before the NCAA changed the rules about all sports being the same division.  They are not going to change the rules, it will and did lead to abuse.  The NCAA is now checking on Financial Aid compliance to ensure that athletic departments are not abusing the scholarships and aid available to DIII athletes.  The NCAA has taken positive steps in recent years to ensure that we have some real student athletes at our schools.

I understand the concept of those schools being "grandfathered" in, I'm simply questioning that ruling, both on the grounds of fairness and also on how it reflects the mission of Division III athletics.  I see no reason why the ruling can't be revisited and adjusted.

[MUCheats]

So if we agree that forcing the DI schools in hockey and lacrosse to drop down to DIII is not an option, why not allow other DIII schools to decide for themselves whether or not to offer a DI showcase program?  I understand the DI tradition of hockey and lacrosse at schools like Colorado College, Clarkson, John Hopkins, etc., but it sounds like people are trying to have it both ways here.  What we currently have is a double-standard, we don't want to hurt the established tradition of certain sports at these schools, but we still want to maintain the spirit of the mission of DIII athletics?  Something's gotta give.

Why does something have to give?

This compromise have been years in the making.  As I understand it, a D-1 Lacrosse player at JHU cannot run tack or play football.  A D1 women's soccer player at Colorado College cannot be a D-III swimmer.

That's great, and that's the way it should be.  Limiting scholarship athletes at those schools to just the team they're on scholarship for makes perfect sense.  Why did it take so long to come to that common sense conclusion?  And now that that arrangement is in place, I see no reason why it can't be extended to other schools wishing to elevate a showcase athletic program to the Division I level with scholarships. 

[HSCTiger74]

So if we agree that forcing the DI schools in hockey and lacrosse to drop down to DIII is not an option, why not allow other DIII schools to decide for themselves whether or not to offer a DI showcase program?  I understand the DI tradition of hockey and lacrosse at schools like Colorado College, Clarkson, John Hopkins, etc., but it sounds like people are trying to have it both ways here.  What we currently have is a double-standard, we don't want to hurt the established tradition of certain sports at these schools, but we still want to maintain the spirit of the mission of DIII athletics?  Something's gotta give.

That is why it is called a grandfather clause.  These were all programs that had existing DI programs in the respective sports before the NCAA changed the rules about all sports being the same division.  They are not going to change the rules, it will and did lead to abuse.  The NCAA is now checking on Financial Aid compliance to ensure that athletic departments are not abusing the scholarships and aid available to DIII athletes.  The NCAA has taken positive steps in recent years to ensure that we have some real student athletes at our schools.

I understand the concept of those schools being "grandfathered" in, I'm simply questioning that ruling, both on the grounds of fairness and also on how it reflects the mission of Division III athletics.  I see no reason why the ruling can't be revisited and adjusted.

If you truly understand the ruling then I'm not sure why you continue to question it, even given the grounds you've stated. All the other schools which opted for D3 when the divisions were established knew about the grandfathered programs and accepted that they would continue. If/when abuses came to light they were dealt with. Any school which joins D3 at this point is surely made aware of the few D1 teams which will be existing in their midst and the constraints they operate under. Maybe I'm naive but that seems to be both fair and transparent, and in no way compromises the mission of D3 athletics.

[Mr. Ypsi]

So if we agree that forcing the DI schools in hockey and lacrosse to drop down to DIII is not an option, why not allow other DIII schools to decide for themselves whether or not to offer a DI showcase program?  I understand the DI tradition of hockey and lacrosse at schools like Colorado College, Clarkson, John Hopkins, etc., but it sounds like people are trying to have it both ways here.  What we currently have is a double-standard, we don't want to hurt the established tradition of certain sports at these schools, but we still want to maintain the spirit of the mission of DIII athletics?  Something's gotta give.

That is why it is called a grandfather clause.  These were all programs that had existing DI programs in the respective sports before the NCAA changed the rules about all sports being the same division.  They are not going to change the rules, it will and did lead to abuse.  The NCAA is now checking on Financial Aid compliance to ensure that athletic departments are not abusing the scholarships and aid available to DIII athletes.  The NCAA has taken positive steps in recent years to ensure that we have some real student athletes at our schools.

I understand the concept of those schools being "grandfathered" in, I'm simply questioning that ruling, both on the grounds of fairness and also on how it reflects the mission of Division III athletics.  I see no reason why the ruling can't be revisited and adjusted.

If you truly understand the ruling then I'm not sure why you continue to question it, even given the grounds you've stated. All the other schools which opted for D3 when the divisions were established knew about the grandfathered programs and accepted that they would continue. If/when abuses came to light they were dealt with. Any school which joins D3 at this point is surely made aware of the few D1 teams which will be existing in their midst and the constraints they operate under. Maybe I'm naive but that seems to be both fair and transparent, and in no way compromises the mission of D3 athletics.

I think you're being unfair to CS by ignoring his latest post (nearly an hour before yours) and responding to an earlier post.  It appears he has 'switched sides' a bit to no longer protesting JHU, etc., having an unfair advantage to wondering why other schools cannot join them (presumably only in the 'non-revenue sports').

While I have no idea whether they would want to, why, for instance, couldn't Kenyon move their swimming program up (after a gazillion consecutive national titles), or other 'minor sports' programs which have become totally dominant (to the point of non-competitive) within their conference (e.g., NCC men's CC in the CCIW)?  (This is NOT the same question as allowing a potential overall revenue-producer [e.g., MUC football] to move up while the rest of the program stayed d3.)

I am not knowledgeable enough to take a position on the question, but feel it IS a fair question.

[HSCTiger74]

So if we agree that forcing the DI schools in hockey and lacrosse to drop down to DIII is not an option, why not allow other DIII schools to decide for themselves whether or not to offer a DI showcase program?  I understand the DI tradition of hockey and lacrosse at schools like Colorado College, Clarkson, John Hopkins, etc., but it sounds like people are trying to have it both ways here.  What we currently have is a double-standard, we don't want to hurt the established tradition of certain sports at these schools, but we still want to maintain the spirit of the mission of DIII athletics?  Something's gotta give.

That is why it is called a grandfather clause.  These were all programs that had existing DI programs in the respective sports before the NCAA changed the rules about all sports being the same division.  They are not going to change the rules, it will and did lead to abuse.  The NCAA is now checking on Financial Aid compliance to ensure that athletic departments are not abusing the scholarships and aid available to DIII athletes.  The NCAA has taken positive steps in recent years to ensure that we have some real student athletes at our schools.

I understand the concept of those schools being "grandfathered" in, I'm simply questioning that ruling, both on the grounds of fairness and also on how it reflects the mission of Division III athletics.  I see no reason why the ruling can't be revisited and adjusted.

If you truly understand the ruling then I'm not sure why you continue to question it, even given the grounds you've stated. All the other schools which opted for D3 when the divisions were established knew about the grandfathered programs and accepted that they would continue. If/when abuses came to light they were dealt with. Any school which joins D3 at this point is surely made aware of the few D1 teams which will be existing in their midst and the constraints they operate under. Maybe I'm naive but that seems to be both fair and transparent, and in no way compromises the mission of D3 athletics.

I think you're being unfair to CS by ignoring his latest post (nearly an hour before yours) and responding to an earlier post.  It appears he has 'switched sides' a bit to no longer protesting JHU, etc., having an unfair advantage to wondering why other schools cannot join them (presumably only in the 'non-revenue sports').

While I have no idea whether they would want to, why, for instance, couldn't Kenyon move their swimming program up (after a gazillion consecutive national titles), or other 'minor sports' programs which have become totally dominant (to the point of non-competitive) within their conference (e.g., NCC men's CC in the CCIW)?  (This is NOT the same question as allowing a potential overall revenue-producer [e.g., MUC football] to move up while the rest of the program stayed d3.)

I am not knowledgeable enough to take a position on the question, but feel it IS a fair question.

Not to be contentious, Ypsi, but I was in fact responding to his 3:30 post, nor do I see any real switching of sides from his 2:19 post. In both cases he seems to be questioning whether a single scholarship D1 program conflicts with the "mission of D3 athletics". My position is that with the proper transparency and controls it can coexist well.
(Sorry. Need to proofread more thoroughly.)