Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?

[jknezek]

I think there's a different mindset for most of the D-3 schools. Compete? Yes. Playoffs and tournaments? Yes. But that's not their A-1 goal. Yes, most schools and teams want to compete and win, but it's not like D-1 where it's bowls and the NCAA tournament or bust. Even low-to-mid majors (like Florida Atlantic where I live) don't think they're successful unless they make the NCAA tourney in hoops. In D-3, I think for the majority of schools, their goals are more modest where an invitation to the playoffs isn't a stinging disappointment.

Again, that's not to say that these D-3 schools and programs don't want to win, and don't want to make the playoffs. They do. But they're not going around firing coaches and booting kids off of the team because of it.

No, but you have seen some conference re-alignments lately (cough SAA) that indicate winning might be more important than in the past. If there are teams willing to realign to create a more homogenous conference, eventually you might get enough together to consider a more homogenous division.

As a side note, I'm 3 credits shy of my MBA from FAU and have been for several years. My company moved me out of state right before I could graduate and I haven't had time to take the online course to finish. Part of my New Year's Resolution for 2012...

[AO]

It may take a while. A very vocal minority managed to get the concept of a fourth division/split in Division III to the floor of the NCAA convention a few years ago and couldn't even muster 30% of the vote.

Over the past decade, Division III has actually spent a lot of time contemplating its differences and trying to find common ground. Some legislation has been passed to that end. I think that effort will continue.

Well, I did say 20 or 30 years. A lot can happen over that kind of timespan. Like most things, it will come down to money. If a large group of schools start investing (yes... investing, not cheating!) a lot of money in athletics in D3, and by a lot I mean a consistently disproportionate amount to most of the D3 universe, friction will develop. If championships continue to get more important, and I do believe athletic championships are gaining importance as recruiting, donation, and brand differentiators, you will eventually get a group that is fed up of running on a treadmill that is either unrealistically or, in their eyes, unnecessarily fast.

Once that happens, momentum will shift quickly. There are already way more D3 schools than any other division. Of the 1066 Active NCAA members, 436 are D3, that is 41%. 30% of 436 gives you a number of schools roughly equal to the amount of teams in D1 FBS OR D1 FCS (130 versus 120 FBS and 122 FCS). You could easily make a D4 just out of those teams, depending on how they were arranged geographically.

Just my belief, but I think either the D3 rules will tighten significantly on what you can spend on facilities, recruiting, roster limits, etc., or I think you will eventually see a D4. Of course, if you ask my wife, I'm usually wrong...

Stats provided come from the Composition & Sport Sponsorship page of the NCAA website...

They couldn't possibly pass that sort of rule, could they?  Especially when the schools pushing for D4 are also typically the schools with large endowments?  I can't understand this reasoning.  Since I'm being outrecruited by School A with their nice facilities, I'm just not going to play them anymore?  How would that improve my recruiting or donations?

[Knightstalker]

I don't know about the WIAC schools but some of the NJAC schools have upgraded their facilities so they are better than a lot of D-1AA schools.  These facilities are also used for the NJ state high school playoffs.  Kean and TCNJ both host the state playoffs and the finals are at the Meadowlands.  I would think a stadium like UWW has would be an attractive venue for other events that create revenue for the school.  There is nothing wrong with any school doing that in any division.

[jknezek]

They couldn't possibly pass that sort of rule, could they?  Especially when the schools pushing for D4 are also typically the schools with large endowments?  I can't understand this reasoning.  Since I'm being outrecruited by School A with their nice facilities, I'm just not going to play them anymore?  How would that improve my recruiting or donations?

Umm... college athletics history has shown this is generally the driver behind teams changing competition. Some of the teams in D3 started off competing in football in what would have been big time divisions, Sewanee, W&L, U of Chicago, I'm sure there are many more. In the 40s and 50s most of these schools dropped out of the running, unable to keep up with the money and facilities being spent. Others, like Vanderbilt, Duke, even Davidson stayed either completely or partially in upper divisions and grew along with the land grant institutions or found other ways to compete. Eventually the "small colleges" divisions were codified in the 70s under the D1, D2 and D3 framework.

There would be nothing all that radical about the establishment of a D4. Just a continuation of a very long trend.

[AO]

They couldn't possibly pass that sort of rule, could they?  Especially when the schools pushing for D4 are also typically the schools with large endowments?  I can't understand this reasoning.  Since I'm being outrecruited by School A with their nice facilities, I'm just not going to play them anymore?  How would that improve my recruiting or donations?

Umm... college athletics history has shown this is generally the driver behind teams changing competition. Some of the teams in D3 started off competing in football in what would have been big time divisions, Sewanee, W&L, U of Chicago, I'm sure there are many more. In the 40s and 50s most of these schools dropped out of the running, unable to keep up with the money and facilities being spent. Others, like Vanderbilt, Duke, even Davidson stayed either completely or partially in upper divisions and grew along with the land grant institutions or found other ways to compete. Eventually the "small colleges" divisions were codified in the 70s under the D1, D2 and D3 framework.

There would be nothing all that radical about the establishment of a D4. Just a continuation of a very long trend.

Did donations and enrollment figures increase for those teams that dropped down a division or got rid of the football team like Chicago?   You can stop the bleeding by dropping down, but it won't make you stronger.

How can you not laugh at the idea of the ncaa trying to limit the amount that could be spent on facilities?   ---"i'm sorry mr. Anderson but we're going to have to reject your $100Million donation as Macalester wouldn't want to play us anymore if our gym was nicer than theirs".

[jknezek]

Wouldn't be the first time. I'm sorry Big State University, I know your donors want to endow 200 scholarships for football players, but you are limited to only 85.

Its really not that hard to imagine. Life is full of rules and the U.S. is full of lawyers to write them.

[emma17]

This question is not meant sarcastically. Is part of the D3 Philosophy properly stated as "We will compete academically but not athletically"?

[jknezek]

This question is not meant sarcastically. Is part of the D3 Philosophy properly stated as "We will compete academically but not athletically"?

Yep. Right under the line that states "We will compete athletically but not academically". Just kidding. Quite a few pages back I posted the guiding tenets of D3.

"The purpose of the NCAA is to assist its members in developing the basis for consistent, equitable competition while minimizing infringement on the freedom of individual institutions to determine their own special objectives and programs. The above statement articulates principles that represent a commitment to Division III membership and shall serve as a guide for the preparation of legislation by the division and for planning and implementation of programs by institutions and conferences."

The bolded part pretty much allows for anything you want provided it is not out and out proscribed some where else (scholarships).

[ncc58]

I'd encourage you to read http://www.athleticmanagement.com/2010/10/15/qa_with_paul_plinske/index.php . It says a lot about the UWW philosophy, donors, and Title IX.

[smedindy]

You couldn't get anything passed on facilities, because they would be grouped into the fitness / wellness plan of the entire institution. You can't not allow a school to upgrade its physical plant that could potentially benefit the entire community.

[jknezek]

You couldn't get anything passed on facilities, because they would be grouped into the fitness / wellness plan of the entire institution. You can't not allow a school to upgrade its physical plant that could potentially benefit the entire community.

To some degree agreed. However, you could easily pass a rule that involved some formula for spending on a student athlete. Have some base amount you are allowed to spend per student athlete plus a mileage allowance for travel. Apply it to any sport specific spending, for example, team budgets including coaches and recruiting trips, locker rooms, video rooms, etc that aren't used by the general population. That exempts things like weight rooms, unless they are only open to athletes, fields that are used for intramurals, etc. Larger teams, like football, would have more money because there are more athletes involved.

Easy enough to pro-rate any mixed use facilities (weight rooms that are open 12 hours to all students, 2 hour blocks to athletes only, fields that are used primarily for varsity sports, but 20% of the time are used for intramurals, etc.)

Finally, top it off by allowing exceptions for overall building expenses over a set period of time (stadium improvements every 10 years, laying in a new turf field, etc.) and index everything to inflation.

It wouldn't be overly hard to do although it would complicate the budgeting process. That being said, all the accounting mentioned above has something analagous to it somewhere else on campus. So nothing would be a foreign concept.

[smedindy]

I'd encourage you to read http://www.athleticmanagement.com/2010/10/15/qa_with_paul_plinske/index.php . It says a lot about the UWW philosophy, donors, and Title IX.

I'm quite surprised they got such a response from their students. Of course, a greater percentage of their students may not be 'traditional', but students are typically the hardest group to crack for fundraising. However, by tying it into the recreation and intramural areas, they must have hit a nerve.

[smedindy]

Video rooms can double as classrooms or meeting rooms. Schools should provide a locker for each student (or has space for each student) for their wellness so that's covered.

I think travel dollars would hurt conferences like the ASC, SAA, SCAC, UAA, SCIAC and the NWC and not the WIAC or OAC. The OAC is pretty compact, as is the WIAC.

The money spent by Mt. Union and Whitewater doesn't seem to be an issue.

[jknezek]

Video rooms can double as classrooms or meeting rooms. Schools should provide a locker for each student (or has space for each student) for their wellness so that's covered.

I think travel dollars would hurt conferences like the ASC, SAA, SCAC, UAA, SCIAC and the NWC and not the WIAC or OAC. The OAC is pretty compact, as is the WIAC.

The money spent by Mt. Union and Whitewater doesn't seem to be an issue.

All of which is easy enough to pro-rate. No institution the size of a small college doesn't use fractional accounting by department somewhere in their financial structure these days. As for what travel dollars would hurt, the goal would be to come up neutral. In other words, you only get travel dollars IF you travel. So the ASC folks would get more than the ODAC folks. Do it per student mile travelled according to the NCAA travel calculator.

As for UMU and Whitewater, I can't repeat enough that I don't blame them for anything. They are doing nothing wrong and, quite obviously, are doing an awful lot right. That being said, I could easily see ways in which you could try and make D3 more competitive IF YOU WANTED, or you could set up a D4 with more stringent rules. Currently there doesn't seem to be much initiative toward this outcome.

I think it is a possibility down the line, although certainly not a foregone or even a likely outcome. If, however, you continue to have a situation where a group of schools pursue a policy of spending and winning at a rate that a large group of schools find unacceptable, D4 becomes more and more likely. Especially as you consider the current size of D3 and its continued growth. Cutting off a slice of the D3 universe as low as 100 teams, or less than 30% of the current teams, would make for a viable athletic division.

[warhawkguard]

If you ever establish a new D4 set of teams, somebody will emerge as a top tier program in it. That program will have a better set of coaches. They will find a way to recruit the better kids that want to play in the lowest of the low in college sports. Chances are some of the new D4 programs will try to differentiate themselves by having better facilities than the other small college down the road to get the better kids to play there. It will just repeat what has already happened in D3. Somebody will emerge as a dominant power and the teams that still can't play well will still be the losers on the field. New mini-superpowers will replace the current powers.  You guys are dreaming if you think it won't happen.

Mount Union made a decision to become great on the field. They were already great in the classroom. Did they really spend more than other similar schools to get there? No. They are dedicated to succcess at many levels. School management took an active role. (supurb coaches really help) UWW wanted that, so they made the decision to imitate that program. Not just on the field. Not just better facilities. Now you see Franklin, and Oshkosh looking at the system very hard. It takes a lot of people working together to get there for years. Many schools in D3 are not dedicated to this.

D3 is played by kids that get no scholarships to play their sports. That is the only equal thing it has.

Getting scholarships to play at a small private school will still usually cost the kid more money than paying full price at a bigger state school like UWW. If the kids get their school paid for because they are athletes, isn't that athletic scholarships? Isn't that cheating? Calling it one thing that it isn't to stay within the rules is cheating. In D3, the only ones that should get scholarships are students based upon need or achievement in the classroom. That is the great thing I like about D3 - the stupid athletes that are mainly stupid athletes, don't get paid to play their sport. They get financial aid, based upon uniform criteria. If you are a big stupid athlete that gets paid, you go D-1.