Future of Division III

Started by Ralph Turner, October 10, 2005, 07:27:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bob Maxwell

back to the original theme of this thread...

I think that D-III is on solid ground... and if anything it will pick up NAIA schools looking to move to the NCAA, and some D-II schools who will move back to D-III after the upcoming blow up in D-IA over football.

I think that D-IA will cause a change within all of D-I becasue of the football money... and that will cause a lot of trickle down into D-IAA, D-IAAA (non-scholarship football) & D-I (non-football).  This will impact the member ship in D-II which may cause some of those schools to rethink and move to D-III or if they are football schools to D-IAA.

I don't have any evidence either way on this... just a gut feeling from conversations I have with counterparts at other schools.

It will all be driven by the D-IA football dollars...  It will be interesting to watch.

D-III is on solid ground!

frank uible

Why shouldn't the top major football colleges (say - very roughly about 80 colleges) opt out of NCAA football (and only football), take their money and play in their separate football sandbox?

Bob Maxwell

That may very well happen... but I think if it or something like it does, they will still be in a box owned by the NCAA... as they will need a place for their other sports to play too.  And while they may be able to go it alone in football, they need the NCAA frame work for their other sports.

each school has say 500 athletes... only 120 of them play football.  I don' tthink that the presidents will allow them to just leave the other 380 out in the cold.  And I don't think the NCAA will let them stay with out the football dollars.

frank uible

Why not non-NCAA football and NCAA all other sports for a given college?

Bob Maxwell

It could happen that way... but I think the NCAA would want its piece of the football money pie.  Or they may not let the non-football sports stay.

You never know what will end up happening, but I think its only a few years away... at most.

Bob Maxwell

I see a proposal for a cap on D-III membership in the proposed legislation for this years convention.  Cam would be 459 members... it speaks directly to the trickle of NAIA schools to NCAA D-III.

Interseting... does anyone know if it was approved?

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)


As far as I know it wasn't.  Although I seem to remember something about it being tabled or sent back for further study, etc.  I'm sure Pat or Ralph can describe it better.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

joehakes

That proposal was withdrawn by the sponsors, the NCAC, after some other growth limiting legislation went through.  There is an association-wide task force that has been created to look at Division III and what impact a membership cap, sub-divison, or creation of a new division would have on the entire NCAA.  There will most likely be some report from that task force by next January's convention.  It will be a huge issue and there will be a lot of discussion about how to manage DIII's growth.

johnnie_esq

Quote from: frank uible on January 28, 2007, 10:32:39 AM
Why shouldn't the top major football colleges (say - very roughly about 80 colleges) opt out of NCAA football (and only football), take their money and play in their separate football sandbox?

They already do!  That's what the BCS is for.   The NCAA's revenue comes principally from the D-1 Men's basketball tournament.  They make a little money from Football (relatively a small amount), and most of the money they make is returned to conferences (the Big 10, Pac 10 and SEC make the lion's share of this).

So knowing that, why should they fund D3?  Or better yet, why should they cut their take to develop a D4? 

The thing I don't get is that, despite the relative non-growth (note-- I didn't say shrinking, and I did say relative) of D2, the NCAA's expenditures have increased toward D2 while they have stayed the same and even gone down to D3.  Does that make sense?

I don't see a merger between the NCAA and NAIA.  The NCAA wants the alternative for antitrust reasons.  The NAIA wants to stop the leak in its basin of schools leaving to join (primarily) D3.  But a hard cap is not a good idea-- the slow matriculation process is bad enough itself-- I think it's hard to tell a school like Northwestern (MN) that, "you may have won your conference, but you have no post-season chance because your school was slow in getting out of the NAIA."  While the slow-entry process is to the school, the kids are the ones paying for it (regardless of whether or not they would have had any success in that).  I don't like that at all.

The hard cap may be used to keep the playoff ratio intact-- whatever it is now (6.5 to 1 or something like that), so as not to need to increase and add more teams to playoffs-- thus adding costs to the Division that the NCAA bigwigs would likely not be happy about.

The real mess here is between D2 and D1 football.  D2 has a mesh between the haves and have-nots-- where the haves want more scholarships for football (because they have the revenue to afford it).  Historically, a school like North Dakota State did well in D2 because they were the big-ticket game in Fargo (with apologies to Concordia).  But a school like Southwest State MN struggled to get attendance over 2,000 while NDSU was drawing 12,000.    Those extra spots allowed NDSU to afford the extra 12 scholies and thereby be more successful (on average) in D2.

But NDSU, UND, SDSU, USD made the jump to D-1AA, so the have's are starting to filter into D-1, leaving the remnants of have's and the have-nots.  The have-nots are beginning to gain the majority in D2 and can take control of legislation- as a result, you'll see more initiatives to limit football scholarships on a divisional scale-- see the dispersal of the NCC after the departure to D1, leaving SCSU, UMD, MSUM, and Aug to join the NSIC, a conference that allows a maximum of 12 fewer scholarships for football than the NCC did.

Couple the D2 problem with the lack of revenue from D-1 football and you have a complex problem.  Is it possible the D2 issue will work itself out on its own?  Sure.  But where do those marginalized go-- are the D2 have's essentially forced to make a choice between a struggle to remake itself in D1-AA or resign to a "lesser" status in D2?  Will D3 absorb these lower-scholarship D2 schools and make them into a new division?

These task forces need to look NCAA-wide to figure things out-- looking at one division only will not result in much assistance, because splitting D3 into two, without the NCAA agreeing to kick in more costs, means half as much benefit for the current members.  Nobody wants that.  And the past D3 task force was required to "do no harm to the current structure (Meaning D2)".  How can you have a substantive task force that does not have the ability to do anything substantive?

So I think the BCS drives this beast for reform-- it needs to come top down because there is no incentive for the big guys to listen to the little guys (D3 allows D1 to be an all-encompassing entity about the love of the game, and not just the big business it is in Minneapolis, Madison, Ann Arbor, South Bend et al. and that's about it.  Why else would they even bother to keep D3 around?).



 
SJU Champions 2003 NCAA D3, 1976 NCAA D3, 1965 NAIA, 1963 NAIA; SJU 2nd Place 2000 NCAA D3; SJU MIAC Champions 2018, 2014, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1999, 1998, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1991, 1989, 1985, 1982, 1979, 1977, 1976, 1975, 1974, 1971, 1965, 1963, 1962, 1953, 1938, 1936, 1935, 1932

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 01, 2007, 12:23:27 PM
And the past D3 task force was required to "do no harm to the current structure (Meaning D2)".  How can you have a substantive task force that does not have the ability to do anything substantive?


That's the issue.  I mean if you have large d2 programs making money, enough money that they want increased football scholarships, you "encourage" them to move up to D1-AA.  They can probably float the burden of the D1 requirements for other sports.

To me the more useful idea would be to expand the d1-AA idea across the board, where schools can opt out of the full d1 requirements for whatever sport they can't afford.

But again, this would require doing away with d2, having the schools that support full or partial rosters with scholarships move up, while other schools move down or to NAIA.

I agree, that statement is the key.  Changes have to be made and they can't be done effectively with the current mandate.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

johnnie_esq

Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 01, 2007, 04:34:53 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 01, 2007, 12:23:27 PM
And the past D3 task force was required to "do no harm to the current structure (Meaning D2)".  How can you have a substantive task force that does not have the ability to do anything substantive?


That's the issue.  I mean if you have large d2 programs making money, enough money that they want increased football scholarships, you "encourage" them to move up to D1-AA.  They can probably float the burden of the D1 requirements for other sports.

To me the more useful idea would be to expand the d1-AA idea across the board, where schools can opt out of the full d1 requirements for whatever sport they can't afford.

But again, this would require doing away with d2, having the schools that support full or partial rosters with scholarships move up, while other schools move down or to NAIA.

I agree, that statement is the key.  Changes have to be made and they can't be done effectively with the current mandate.

I like your idea of expansion of the D1-AA concept.  Essentially, D2 could become D1-AA (or vice versa).  That is already the case in some fields, as schools like UM-Duluth, St. Cloud State, MN-State Mankato, Lake Superior State, Michigan Tech are already D-1 hockey schools, but D2 in everything else.

That, in turn, leaves the D2 have-nots lumped with D3.  Either the NCAA creates a new division for this (say, maximum of 12 scholarships for football-- remember that scholarships are "equivalences," meaning a coach can spread that aid out over several athletes if they wish, not just a 1-1 ratio), or the NCAA forces these schools to go no-scholly and split D3 somehow (which I doubt because a certain amount of non-need based aid to athletes is desireable from a policy standpoint, and splitting apart a 500-some school division, though likely necessary, would be difficult).  If the number of scholarships required is low enough, I can see some D3 schools considering moving to such a hybrid division so they can further their missions-- perhaps some public schools would appreciate the ability to give a few non-need based aid to athletes.
SJU Champions 2003 NCAA D3, 1976 NCAA D3, 1965 NAIA, 1963 NAIA; SJU 2nd Place 2000 NCAA D3; SJU MIAC Champions 2018, 2014, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2001, 1999, 1998, 1996, 1995, 1994, 1993, 1991, 1989, 1985, 1982, 1979, 1977, 1976, 1975, 1974, 1971, 1965, 1963, 1962, 1953, 1938, 1936, 1935, 1932

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 01, 2007, 04:59:39 PM
That is already the case in some fields, as schools like UM-Duluth, St. Cloud State, MN-State Mankato, Lake Superior State, Michigan Tech are already D-1 hockey schools, but D2 in everything else.

Don't forget d3 member Colorado College's d1 hockey team either.  They would be very disappointed in you.


I think that this plan would help in so many ways.  A lot of d2 schools are d2 because meeting the seating and attendance guidelines for D1 is impossible, but there are a number that could do it financially.  An expanded D1-AA would allow for this to happen, especially if you allowed the schools to choose which sports they went full d1 in.

You would have nearly 500 schools in d3, but then I see this as a distinct advantage.  Sure, you're creating somewhat of a greater expense having to provide for d1aa playoffs in extra sports, but at the same time you're creating this giant, entirely amateur, non-scholarship division.

I think a tournament close to the current ratio (let's say 96 teams to make the numbers work out well) would be a huge draw.  Now you've got people from everywhere rooting for these student athletes who are competing for nothing more than the love of the game.  I think a tournament of this size (which every march madness junky secretly wishes for in d1) would draw enough fan and media attention to offset the increased cost of the event.

Again, this is a totally ideal situation, but we can dream, can't we?
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Ralph Turner

In our part of the country, a non-functioning D2 really hurts D3.

The mission and vision of the schools in the D-2 Lone Star Conference and the D-2 (non-football-playing) Heartland Conference are completely different from the D3 ASC or the D1-A (Playoff Division?) Southland Conference.  One can look back at a Lone Star Conference from my college days containing Southland Conference's D1A (Southwest) Texas State, Sam Houston State, Stephen F Austin State, D2 Lone Star Conference's East Texas State (TAMU-Commerce), Tarleton State, Angelo State and Abilene Christian, and D3's Howard Payne, McMurry and Sul Ross State.  All schools seem to be happy where they are now.

We even have two functioning NAIA conferences, the Red River and the Sooner AC that function in this part of the country.

I really don't think that the Presidents of D3 want to open up the flood gates of D2 into D3.  The problem for D3 has been with the major migration from the NAIA of whole conferences, such as the LMC/NAthCon, the ASC, the NWC and the GSAC, plus selected migration of individual schools into D3 from various affiliations or de novo, as when UT-Tyler or UT-Dallas finally begin to grow their freshmen classes.

I cannot speak to the growth that has occurred in the Mid-Atlantic regions and to the north and the east.

Gregory Sager

One advantage to having a supersized D3 that absorbs the remnants of the current D2 could be clout. Right now D3 is the pauper who has to come to NCAA meetings with hat in hand in order to beg for crumbs from D1's table. While rejiggering the configurations of the various NCAA divisions wouldn't make our schools any wealthier with regard to athletic department income, it would bolster the D3 ranks in terms of membership numbers enough for the NCAA to have to take it more seriously.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)


I really do think a giant division with an entertaining super tournament can really be an advantage and if it draws enough attention to pay for itself, that also brings with it a lot of clout.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere