D3 proposals at the 2022 NCAA convention

[Inkblot]

Ideally, the minimum should never go below the number of eligible D3 teams divided by the bracket size... otherwise, you run into problems if every conference goes to the minimum. Football is already cutting it close; there were 229 non-NESCAC teams this season, which is just two short of the number needed to make 33 seven-team conferences. If you reduce the minimum to 6, there would be enough teams to form 38 conferences. Obviously not every conference is at the minimum, but enough are to have caused a game of musical chairs in the northeast; the CCC, ECFC, Empire 8, Liberty, MIAA, NEWMAC, NJAC, ODAC, SCIAC, and UMAC (10 conferences out of 27) were at the minimum this season. (Dropping the minimum to 6 could also theoretically allow the MAC to do a Commonwealth/Freedom split in football, if that's allowable.)

[Ron Boerger]

One of the things one of the panelists touched on was it might make sense to have the flexibility to have different numbers for different sports, e.g. 7 for football, maybe 5 for some emerging sports where participation numbers are lower.  Which would require another vote down the line.

It was also good to hear that (if the new constitution is approved?) D3 will be somewhat more autonomous and not have to have routine decisions impacting only its membership blessed by D1/D2. 

[Ralph Turner]

Liked the autonomy issue.

Am hesitant about changing/lowering the AQ. Seven for a conference, and especially for football seems to be the happy medium. Yes the Region 1 & 2 schools have managed to keep the AQ's with 7 teams by what legal means are possible. But, 5 football Pool C bids are not enough. Hardin-Simmons was left at home and UMHB dominated every other team in the playoffs not from Texas.

Great discussion about non-traditional seasons, especially with all of the issues that Spring Football causes.

Wished that we could have gotten more money than what we got, e.g., Dave's 3.75%

(I like the fact that you can listen at 1.5x speed!)

[Ron Boerger]

Hey, the AA said they'd pick up $1.5M in overhead costs the division pays now.  Not as good as any of us hoped for but better than what it could have been. 

I did appreciate all the panelists (and Dave) saying "the NCAA holds up Division III as an example of true student athletes but won't fund it as such."   D2 are the pigs at the trough getting twice the money for half the schools and if D3 was smart at some point they'll broker a deal with D1 that says if you want D3's votes on something you'll fix that.

[TheChucker]

When's the last time D3 allowed Spring practice in football, if ever? All I know is we didn't have it in the 80s but would have welcomed it as a player.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Hey, the AA said they'd pick up $1.5M in overhead costs the division pays now.  Not as good as any of us hoped for but better than what it could have been. 

I did appreciate all the panelists (and Dave) saying "the NCAA holds up Division III as an example of true student athletes but won't fund it as such."   D2 are the pigs at the trough getting twice the money for half the schools and if D3 was smart at some point they'll broker a deal with D1 that says if you want D3's votes on something you'll fix that.

Many in D1 don't want to let go of their money ... so I highly doubt they would ever broker a deal with DIII for anything.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

When's the last time D3 allowed Spring practice in football, if ever? All I know is we didn't have it in the 80s but would have welcomed it as a player.

How do you mean? Because there is spring practice in football. Do you mean in full pads and helmets with full hitting?

[TheChucker]

When's the last time D3 allowed Spring practice in football, if ever? All I know is we didn't have it in the 80s but would have welcomed it as a player.

How do you mean? Because there is spring practice in football. Do you mean in full pads and helmets with full hitting?

Yes, full contact. I'm a bit out of the loop and thought only strength and conditioning based "practice" was allowed.

[Pat Coleman]

A ball is also permitted but no contact, no.

[Ron Boerger]

Hey, the AA said they'd pick up $1.5M in overhead costs the division pays now.  Not as good as any of us hoped for but better than what it could have been. 

I did appreciate all the panelists (and Dave) saying "the NCAA holds up Division III as an example of true student athletes but won't fund it as such."   D2 are the pigs at the trough getting twice the money for half the schools and if D3 was smart at some point they'll broker a deal with D1 that says if you want D3's votes on something you'll fix that.

Many in D1 don't want to let go of their money ... so I highly doubt they would ever broker a deal with DIII for anything.

Of course.  What I meant was take some of D2's excess and reallocate to D3.  But that won't happen either.

[Ron Boerger]

A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

[jknezek]

A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

This is a great read. Never heard of d3playbook but I fully intend to support the efforts. Interesting perspectives and it's easy to agree with both. I think what the "vote no" perspective is missing is the very really threat D1, or at least the P5 portion, take their sports, and their money, and go. Yeah, D3 is being screwed over by D2. But forcing a schism across the membership that results in an impasse by voting no just increases the odds that there will be no money for anyone. In this case, D3 might have the power of the votes at 40% of the membership but, as is so often the case, money is louder than procedure.

[Ralph Turner]

A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

This is a great read. Never heard of d3playbook but I fully intend to support the efforts. Interesting perspectives and it's easy to agree with both. I think what the "vote no" perspective is missing is the very really threat D1, or at least the P5 portion, take their sports, and their money, and go. Yeah, D3 is being screwed over by D2. But forcing a schism across the membership that results in an impasse by voting no just increases the odds that there will be no money for anyone. In this case, D3 might have the power of the votes at 40% of the membership but, as is so often the case, money is louder than procedure.

+1!

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

A while back, I stumbled across something called "d3playbook", a daily newsletter touching on many d3 topics including some sports that don't covered on a regular basis.  It's compiled by a gentleman by the name of Steve Ulrich.  Today's newsletter contains a "vote yes/vote no [edit: on the proposed new NCAA constitution]" column.  The yes perspective is from one of the D3 members of the constitution committee, Brad Bankston, commissioner of the Old Dominion Athletic Conference.  The no comes from Joe Onderko, commissioner of the Presidents Athletic Conference and past president of the D3 Commissioners Association.  You've seen the arguments here already for the most part but their perspectives are valuable nonetheless.   Today's entire newsletter is here and I find it a good way to keep up with some things I wouldn't otherwise hear about.

This is a great read. Never heard of d3playbook but I fully intend to support the efforts. Interesting perspectives and it's easy to agree with both. I think what the "vote no" perspective is missing is the very really threat D1, or at least the P5 portion, take their sports, and their money, and go. Yeah, D3 is being screwed over by D2. But forcing a schism across the membership that results in an impasse by voting no just increases the odds that there will be no money for anyone. In this case, D3 might have the power of the votes at 40% of the membership but, as is so often the case, money is louder than procedure.

That's the real issue.  What this constitution does, more than anything, is allow D1, when its ready, to just give the Power 5 their own division.  It's all about bending over backwards to keep those schools from killing the NCAA outright.  Everything is pointing to the development of four 16-team conferences, that just compete with themselves for everything.  The other 900+ schools, just want to make sure they can still ride the coattails a bit when it happens.

[Ron Boerger]

And unsurprisingly the new constitution passes by a 4:1 margin.