2014 D3 Season: National Perspective

[PaulNewman]

Will the committee put Messiah and F&M in the same quadrant for an Elite 8 game on paper even if F&M still appears to be the clear #2 or #3 in the country at the time, or would they consider moving F&M to New England or Great Lakes/Central regions?

A mock Sweet Sixteen outlay:

Brandeis
Oneonta
Tufts
Amherst/SLU/Wheaton (MA)

Messiah
F&M
Montclair
Salisbury/CNU/Muhlenberg/Dickinson/Emory?

Calvin/Kenyon
Kenyon/Calvin
Wheaton (Ill)
OWU/John Carroll?/Carnegie Mellon?

Trinity
Loras
Whitworth
Wartburg/Luther/St Olaf/GAC?

[Ron Boerger]

In the West regionally ranked last week we have:

Trinity
Whitworth
Hardin-Simmons (don't know what deal is here?)
Pomona
Colorado Coll
TX-Dallas

And we don't have:

Puget Sound
Willamette

After the AQs, how many should the West get?  2? 1? 0?  If 0 or 1, that leaves 1-2 more slots left over for the other 7 regions.

Glad I'm not on the committee!

Hardin-Simmons has played an odd schedule with almost no games outside of ASC play this season.   At the time of the ranking they were 6-1-2 with only a 1-2 neutral site result vs Trinity in the first game of the season keeping them from being unbeaten.   The two ties were vs. regionally ranked UT-Dallas and an improving UT-Tyler squad, so per the criteria they probably warranted that ranking.

Their results this weekend, however, were 1-2 at Ozarks and an 0-1 at UT-Dallas, which should push them off the board when the next regionals come out. 

[Mr.Right]

I am definitely not giving a bid to MSOE...No wins against ranked teams and they have lost to all teams ahead of them in the regional rankings in which they do not even get ranked. They have a SOS of .501..Case closed. That league is a one bid road show.

The South does look chaotic but only at the top. Those 6 or 7 teams that you listed who are not even ranked have to win their tourney

[Mr.Right]

The South Atlantic will be a battle for most likely 3 bids. Rutgers-Newark, Emory, Montclair St, CNU and Salisbury. Really maybe only 2 bids depending on the conference tournament and if Emory chokes this weekend

[PaulNewman]

So let's say Camden wins conf tourney.  You are putting Newark out.  And if CNU loses again or doesn't get to CAC final you are putting them out?  What are you doing with Emory if they lose to Rochester and win the other one?

[Mr.Right]

If Camden wins that tourney than Montclair St gets in. Newark must beat Montclair St in the next game and then reach the final. Otherwise yes they would be out. CNU and would get in over Salisbury as long as it gets into the CAC final.  Emory has no business being in this but since they are #1 they could likely go 1-1-1 and get in. We agree that the top of this region is a mess and all these teams have work to do

[PaulNewman]

Here's another for you.

In the NWC, Willamette currently is 1st place at 9-1-1 and 12-4-1 overall, Whitworth in 2nd, and Puget Sound in 3rd at 8-2-1 and 11-4-2 overall.  Willamette plays Whitworth Saturday where a win will probably give them NWC bid.  Does Whitworth still get in?  If Whitworth gets the AQ you don't see any chance for Willamette or PSU?

[wchandy22]

Will the committee put Messiah and F&M in the same quadrant for an Elite 8 game on paper even if F&M still appears to be the clear #2 or #3 in the country at the time, or would they consider moving F&M to New England or Great Lakes/Central regions?

I doubt Messiah and F&M would meet in the 3rd round if they were to finish the regular season ranked #1 and #2.  In the past, the committee has had some rather highly ranked teams meeting each other earlier than would be expected, but this was usually attributed to travel accommodations.  There was a similar scenario just last year when #1 Ohio Wesleyan (19-0-3) was placed in the same regional bracket as #3 Messiah (18-1-1).  But they were placed at opposite ends of their 16-team bracket and would only have met (had Rose-Hulman not thrown a wrench into the plan) in the 4th (sectional final) round.

But you never know with the committee.  They could move one of those teams to another bracket (as was done when Messiah and York were both highly ranked) or they could put them both in the same regional bracket.  I would not be surprised by the latter because they never played during the regular season and the committee loves intrigue.  But it's hard to believe we are approaching the tournament and I have yet to break out the sweatshirts and jackets that I packed into the trunk of the car about a month ago.

[PaulNewman]

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting a sweet 16 (3rd round) game with Messiah and F&M, but rather would they be matched up for possible Elite 8? When I look at the strength in the other projected brackets I don't see a really strong case for moving F&M.  Bottom line is whoever ends up placed with Messiah is going to feel unlucky, unless of course they get upset early which then makes the quadrant easier for the other highly rated teams.

[lastguyoffthebench]

So let's say Camden wins conf tourney.  You are putting Newark out.  And if CNU loses again or doesn't get to CAC final you are putting them out?  What are you doing with Emory if they lose to Rochester and win the other one?

If Newark loses to MSU, they will have to play a first round NJAC playoff game.   If they lose to Camden for the 2nd time, I don't see how Newark can get in.    But it's also hard to justify Camden getting in with 8 losses.   First things first, they face a tough test on the road at Stockton.   

If Emory finishes 6th in the UAA, they should not get a bid.   

[PaulNewman]

Agreed on Emory.  They should have to go 2-0-1 or at least 2-1 over last 3.

Lastguy, what do you think CNU needs to get done to secure bid, and do you see Salisbury as safe?

[Mr.Right]

Enjoy all this now because when this proposal gets put into place we will be going back to the early 2000's with only 3 At-Large bids.



On Friday, the Division III Presidents Council endorsed five recommendations from the Division III Management Council that will cut a projected $2 million from the division's championships budget, according to a news release on the NCAA's website.

Among the changes that could be on the horizon: increased fees for DIII members and decreased fields for national championships at the DIII level.

Read the full news release here:

The Division III Presidents Council endorsed five recommendations from the Division III Management Council that will cut a projected $2.17 million from the division's championships budget. All of the measures pertain to championships travel policies; four of them are effective immediately. The proposal that necessitates a three-day window between championships selections and the first date of competition will go into effect in 2015-16. 

All of the measures pertain to championships travel policies; four of them are effective immediately. The proposal that necessitates a three-day window between championships selections and the first date of competition will go into effect in 2015-16. 

The proposals were initially crafted via collaboration between the Division III Championships and Strategic Planning and Finance committees. While the cuts will help combat a projected budget shortfall of $2.5 million in the 2014-15 academic year, the council noted at its Aug. 7 meeting in Indianapolis that these are only preliminary steps in the long march to achieving a balanced budget.

The Division III Presidents Advisory Group discussed ways to balance the budget over the long term when it convened on the eve of the council meeting. The group, which is composed of representatives from each of Division III's 43 conferences, endorsed the recommended championships reductions. Some members also suggested examining cuts to non-championships spending, which is primarily composed of grant programs and accounts for 25 percent of the division's budget.

The advisory group also endorsed the concept of relying on membership funding to support championships and other programs through a dues increase or targeted championships assessment. Membership dues, currently $900 a year per school and $450 per conference, haven't been adjusted since 1985 and are far lower than schools are accustomed to paying for membership in other organizations.

The advisory group stressed that presidents would likely be amenable to providing increased annual funding, either at a flat rate or at rates that slide based on criteria such as enrollment, school budget or size of athletics program. With approximately 500 dues-paying schools and conferences in the division, a targeted rate hike could make a significant impact on the efforts to balance the budget, advisory group members argued.

The budget discussion will continue this fall, leading up to the Division III Issues Forum at the 2015 Convention. That session will include a comprehensive review of the division's budget resources, policies and process, as well as short-term and long-term budget options identified by the championships and finance committees including the benefits and drawbacks of adjusting the division's championships access ratio.

"We're going to have to make several adjustments," said Alan Cureton, president of the University of Northwestern – St. Paul, vice chair of the presidents council and chair of the strategic planning and finance committee. "So when we asked the presidents advisory group, they threw out a variety of options. ...We're going to take a really hard look at everything, but we also want feedback from the Association and the membership as to what they think we should do."

On-campus evaluations

In July, the management council opted not to sponsor a legislative recommendation from the Division III Recruiting Working Group that would permit on-campus athletic evaluations. The management council made the decision despite encouragement from the membership, via survey and straw poll results, that such a proposal be brought to the 2015 Convention floor.

The presidents council voted to sponsor the legislation, though it did not offer its full support for the rule. Those in favor argued it would make life easier for coaches, while those in opposition noted that those burdens, namely the time and money required for travel, would be passed to prospective student-athletes. Though council members didn't formally endorse the proposal, they sponsored it in order to ensure it would be added to the 2015 Convention legislative agenda, fostering discussion among members and, ultimately, giving them the opportunity to decide the rule's fate.

"The presidents council can see the pros and cons of both sides, but we're really interested in what the membership thinks," Cureton said. "And we have no idea which way it is going to go, but this is the beauty of our Association. It's membership-driven, so we want to know what they think about this."

Reduction in number of contests

The council voted to co-sponsor proposed legislation – initially sponsored by the Old Dominion Athletic Conference and the Centennial Conference – that would reduce the maximum number of in-season contests (or dates of competition, depending on the sport) by up to 10 percent. The reduction would apply to nearly every sport, save for those with only a handful of contests such as football (10) and cross country (9).

The conferences brought the proposal forward in hopes of limiting costs and ensuring that student-athletes can devote more time to academics and other extracurricular endeavors. The proposal wouldn't shorten the overall length of the playing season, but simply eliminate a few contests – particularly those played midweek that disrupt classes – within the current timeframes allotted for sports' regular seasons.

The presidents council debated the merits of the proposal and, ultimately, voted to co-sponsor it, arguing that it would be beneficial to student-athletes because it would ease their athletics burdens.

"Our concern as presidents was the fact that students were being drawn away during the week," Cureton said. "The idea is to protect the students' time so that they have what they need in the classroom and aren't spending it out on the road or away from campus because of athletic contests."

Other actions

The council sponsored convention legislation that would add women's sand volleyball as a sport in Division III and establish a National Collegiate Championship for the sport. The first sand volleyball championship would tentatively be scheduled to be held in 2016. The council noted that National Collegiate Championships do not have an impact on Division III's budget.

Currently, schools hoping to join Division III must take part in a five-year membership process, which includes an exploratory year and four provisional years. Last month the management council, per a recommendation by the Division III Membership Committee, endorsed legislation that would permit schools that have demonstrated a commitment to the Division III philosophy and clearly meet sports sponsorship and financial aid requirements to skip the exploratory year and take part only in the four-year provisional process. The presidents council voted to sponsor this legislation for the 2015 Convention.

The presidents advisory group discussed potential reforms to the nontraditional segment (offseason) at length given that membership-sponsored legislation calling for greater practice opportunities in spring football will be up for vote at the 2015 Convention.

A majority of the presidents in attendance voiced concern about the time demands and expenses associated with the current nontraditional segment, and expressed a willingness to consider a new nontraditional model. Those presidents felt that a new model might better preserve the benefits of the current nontraditional segment, while enhancing the ability of student-athletes to have a diverse academic, athletic and extracurricular life on campus.

Others countered, noting that the popularity of the current nontraditional model with student-athletes and coaches, and their belief that the model encourages student-athletes to flourish athletically and academically. The presidents council will tackle this topic in greater depth when it reconvenes in the fall and the membership will engage in a review of the current nontraditional season model at the 2015 Convention Division III Issues Forum.

[lastguyoffthebench]

UAA is always regarded as one of the best conferences, but they consistently stumble in the NCAAs (mainly because they run into some buzz saws).   I believe that NYU was the only UAA team to reach the final four, and that was in 2006.

[lastguyoffthebench]

I would think that CNU just has to win one CAC playoff game to earn a bid.     Salisbury should be safe, even with that overrated schedule.   It's hilarious that they will be #1 in South Atlantic with 5 draws.

[Mr.Right]

CNU should be fine. Salisbury and Rutgers Newark not so much as there SOS is not very good. They have a lot of work to do