Division III Schools With Division I Programs?

[Mr. Ypsi]

The post you specifically responded to said such 'grandfathered' exceptions seemed against the d3 spirit.  The 3:33 post said they were OK; why can't others do it?

IMO, they are a switch of sides (again, presumably only for non-revenue sports).  CS may or may not be bi-polar , but he(?) does raise an interesting (to me, at least) question: would it be a problem to allow d3 schools to elevate (or lower, depending on perspective! ) individual non-revenue sports which have 'out-grown' either d3 in general or a specific conference?

(And, again, I have no idea as to the right answer.  While sometimes I play 'Socratic Method', this time it really IS a question. )

[MUCheats]

The post you specifically responded to said such 'grandfathered' exceptions seemed against the d3 spirit.  The 3:33 post said they were OK; why can't others do it?

IMO, they are a switch of sides (again, presumably only for non-revenue sports).  CS may or may not be bi-polar , but he(?) does raise an interesting (to me, at least) question: would it be a problem to allow d3 schools to elevate (or lower, depending on perspective! ) individual non-revenue sports which have 'out-grown' either d3 in general or a specific conference?

(And, again, I have no idea as to the right answer.  While sometimes I play 'Socratic Method', this time it really IS a question. )

In fairness, I'm not really taking a position here.  What I want most is consistency throughout Division III.  It doesn't seem right that eight schools are allowed to have scholarship programs in Division I sports and none of the other Division III schools have the opportunity to do the same.

I do tend to believe that any Division III school offering a scholarship Division I showcase program is probably doing so at odds with the mission of Division III athletics.  But I'd be more willing to overlook that situation if every school had the same opportunity to do offer such a DI program.

[MUCheats]

Another questioned that I asked before but no one responded to:

If Division III is moving towards a split where the more academically-inclined schools separate themselves from their more athletically-inclined non-scholarship peers, where would Johns Hopkins and Colorado College fit in?  These are two very fine academic schools that I'm guessing would like to follow their peers (in the CC and SCAC, for example) into a potential new Division IV (or DIII-AA) where athletics are more so de-emphasized.  How would offering athletics scholarship and Division I programs fit into that equation?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Another questioned that I asked before but no one responded to:

If Division III is moving towards a split where the more academically-inclined schools separate themselves from their more athletically-inclined non-scholarship peers, where would Johns Hopkins and Colorado College fit in?  These are two very fine academic schools that I'm guessing would like to follow their peers (in the CC and SCAC, for example) into a potential new Division IV (or DIII-AA) where athletics are more so de-emphasized.  How would offering athletics scholarship and Division I programs fit into that equation?

I won't attempt an answer to your final question, because I can't accept your initial premise.  Are Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, and Michigan NOT 'academically-inclined' because they are (at least in some sports) athletic powerhouses?

While the Earlham President (and a handful of others) see a conflict, I just don't see any inherent conflict between athletics and academics.  Sure, there is always the potential for conflict (and some have gone astray), but they need not be enemies (and should be allies).

[Ralph Turner]

Ahhh, dredging the old D-IV thing.  (I am wondering exactly who you are that has connections to the "D-IV" axis of D-III that the D-IV question is percolating again.  That convention vote on the D-IV question was an incredible "smack-down".)

The Future of D-III message board has numerous links and discussions about D-IV beginning at Post #616.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3880.616.

The D-IV faction could never get enough traction with the schools that the D-IV'ers wanted to come to their party.

In the next 40-60 pages of that message board, we found that:

--the NESCAC was not dissatisfied with D-III.

--the D-IV'ers numbered less than about 80-100 schools.

--not every member of the target conferences would have been eligible to join D-IV.

If you follow the links I  have posted (and if the links are still valid) then you can find the core documents that were circulated among the NCAA presidents and key individuals.

In fact, Colorado College probably would not move to D-IV, because they want to keep scholarship Ice Hockey.

[Ralph Turner]

See my post #822 on the Future of D-III board for a breakdown of the alignments from the Background Document.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3880.822

It is ironic that the President of Earlham, a kindred spirit of the D-IV movement, has led his school out of the "D-IV" NCAC and into the "D-III" HCAC.

The link to the D-IV Background Document is no longer valid.

[sunny]

Any Division III school can bring up a men's and women's program to Division I, they just can't offer scholarships.

Honestly, at this point, I'm not sure what the draw to doing such (even WITH scholarships) would be, other than for the programs already competing at D-I without scholarships (e.g. Hobart lacrosse).  

Hopkins lacrosse, Colorado College ice hockey, et. al are established "brands" and big names within their sports.  Do you know what a big draw of Kenyon Swimming and Salisbury Men's Lacrosse is?  The chance to compete for a national title every year.  I would actually hazard a guess that if Kenyon Swimming went D-I non-scholarship they might get lesser talented student-athletes than they do now, because that national title selling point is gone and there would still be no scholarship money.  I would also theorize that even if Kenyon went D-I in swimming WITH scholarships that sure they might get better swimmers, but I don't think they'd be better enough to be the powerhouse they are in D-III.  As such, since swimming isn't a big revenue sport nor does it get on the "bottom line" of ESPN, what would be the benefit?  

Honestly, I think the only thing keeping a lot of the non-scholarship D-I programs at D-III schools going is alumni pressure.  Hobart tried to take men's lacrosse back to D-III a couple years ago, but quickly reversed course because of alumni pressure.  On the other hand, Ursinus took its non-scholarship Division I field hockey program to Division III early this decade and now has a National Championship to show for it.  Would Ursinus have won a national title in Division I without scholarships?  No.  Would Ursinus have won a national title in Division I if they were suddenly allowed to give scholarships?  I doubt that as well, even though they were already established as a D-I program.

There's a reason the programs that were grandfathered in were grandfathered in.  There was so much history and past success tied to their "brands" in those sports, that a) it seemed unfair to take that away and b) they could maintain their level of success in those sports without compromising their overall Division III mission.  

ETA:  This isn't to say that I don't have a sort of uneasiness about Division III schools having scholarship sports.  I do.  However, when the issue was last revisited, it became apparent that forcing these schools to choose between a) dropping scholarships and keeping the programs in Division I, thereby damaging them competitively; b) taking their Division I programs to Division III, or c) taking their entire departments to Division I, which would likely mean trimming the department down to the bare minimum of D-I sports AFTER having been "grandfathered in" seemed patently unfair.  

If you had a time machine and could travel back to when the grandfathering occurred, you could make a case against it.  I don't see that happening, though.

[cush]

D4 is pretty much toast...at least for the foreseeable future. Now an Ncaa/naia merger might open the door again for creating another division but who knows how that works out. I do think some conference shifts might happen or maybe just a few school's moving around, keeping my eye on who fills this spot:

http://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/Story/08-08-W-amp-J-NCAC-

[MUCheats]

D4 is pretty much toast...at least for the foreseeable future. Now an Ncaa/naia merger might open the door again for creating another division but who knows how that works out. I do think some conference shifts might happen or maybe just a few school's moving around, keeping my eye on who fills this spot:

http://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/Story/08-08-W-amp-J-NCAC-

DePauw seems like the obvious choice to me, but W&J would be a good fit, too, in my opinion.  Some have mentioned John Carroll, too, but I just don't see how that makes sense.

The NCAC seems to make a big deal about the whole Phi Beta Kappa thing, which I find funny because even Kent State and Bowling Green State have chapters!

[Gregory Sager]

It is ironic that the President of Earlham, a kindred spirit of the D-IV movement, has led his school out of the "D-IV" NCAC and into the "D-III" HCAC.

I thought the exact same thing, Ralph. And the irony is that President Bennett of Earlham thinks that his Quakers will be more competitive in the HCAC than they were in the NCAC! His publicly-stated goal is for Earlham to be able to win half of its contests in its various sports.

I have a hard time understanding his reasoning on several fronts.

DePauw seems like the obvious choice to me, but W&J would be a good fit, too, in my opinion.  Some have mentioned John Carroll, too, but I just don't see how that makes sense.

DePauw would be a blindingly obvious choice to move to the NCAC, in my opinion, both for the sake of DePauw and for the NCAC at large. The problem with W&J is that bringing the Presidents into the league would make an already-overlarge circuit in terms of geography even larger; the closest NCAC school to W&J is Allegheny, which is two hours away, and it's a ridiculously long trip for Wabash.

I was under the impression that the NCAC folks considered John Carroll to be one of those academically-undesirable types that they left behind in the OAC when the NCAC was formed, but perhaps that's changed.

[Ralph Turner]

I want to send props to Pat Coleman for the "archives" function that these message boards provide.

I was able to reconstruct much of the "D-IV" debate from the posts that many of us made.  That is an incredible feature!

Thanks!   

[smedindy]

Greg,

It's 384 miles from Crawfordsville to Washington, PA, but most all of that is a straight shot on I-70 from Indy all the way through Ohio. It's the same amount from C'ville to Hiram, Ohio and 458 miles to Meadville, PA. So W & J wouldn't be that onerous.

[MUCheats]

I was under the impression that the NCAC folks considered John Carroll to be one of those academically-undesirable types that they left behind in the OAC when the NCAC was formed, but perhaps that's changed.

I don't know if it's that John Carroll is an "academically-undesirable type."  The reality is that JCU is a very good school, and I believe an argument could made that it's the strongest academic institution in the OAC.  I think a bigger issue would be the fact that JCU isn't a small, liberal arts school, like every other school in the NCAC.  On the point of Phi Beta Kappa, maybe that is an important criterion for membership in the NCAC, and JCU definitely lacks in that regard.  However, I do wonder why the NCAC would place such an emphasis on PBK--it can't be that difficult to obtain a chapter, considering the likes of Bowling Green State and Kent State both have PBK chapters on campus. 

[frank uible]

Could it be that JCU rejects PBK, not that PBK rejects JCU?

[Gregory Sager]

Greg,

It's 384 miles from Crawfordsville to Washington, PA, but most all of that is a straight shot on I-70 from Indy all the way through Ohio. It's the same amount from C'ville to Hiram, Ohio and 458 miles to Meadville, PA. So W & J wouldn't be that onerous.

A 384-mile trip isn't onerous? You sound like Ralph "Deepintheheartatexas" Turner, Smed.

I don't know if it's that John Carroll is an "academically-undesirable type."  The reality is that JCU is a very good school, and I believe an argument could made that it's the strongest academic institution in the OAC.  I think a bigger issue would be the fact that JCU isn't a small, liberal arts school, like every other school in the NCAC.  On the point of Phi Beta Kappa, maybe that is an important criterion for membership in the NCAC, and JCU definitely lacks in that regard.  However, I do wonder why the NCAC would place such an emphasis on PBK--it can't be that difficult to obtain a chapter, considering the likes of Bowling Green State and Kent State both have PBK chapters on campus.  

The Phil Beta Kappa issue has come up several times in the NCAC basketball room over the years, usually in conjunction with cross-league banter with OAC supporters, who are apt to point out that their league is top-to-bottom better than the NCAC in the major sports. There seems to be a very pronounced sense among many followers of the NCAC -- at least as far as I've seen in the rooms on this site -- that the NCAC member schools moved "up and out" when they formed the league, segregating themselves from what they felt were academically inferior schools in the OAC that they left behind, and that Phil Beta Kappa chapters are in some way indicative of that divide. I can't speak for either the NCAC or JCU as to whether JCU would currently meet NCAC membership standards or not.