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.

frank uible

You bureaucrats think that you can regulate your way to heaven! My solution would be to bust up the NCAA altogether, and let the marketplace control. Each college could formulate its football program entirely as it sees fit and schedule those opponents whose football actions are sufficiently attracive or at least not sufficiently obnoxious.

scottiedoug

Pat:  I said that restricting expansion of D3 would make it hard for the GSAC to expand.  That is a statement of fact (or opinion?) with which I would think you agree.  I did not use the terms "blame" or "fault" in my observation.  I do not see how observing that a dog bit my aunt implies that I blame the dog.  But then you are the copy editor!

Warren Thompson

#662
Frank Uible:

What a great choice of words: "sufficiently obnoxious."  :)

frank uible


joehakes

Pat is right when he talks about the difficulty of a larger group finding philosophical common ground.  DIII is driven by philosophy based tenets and it becomes even more important to find that common ground.  It is interesting to see folks blame the "NCAA" for things, when the divisions are all self-governing (while admittedly not self-funded) and each school has one vote.  The Presidents' Council is the most influential group there, and last I checked, those Presidents all come from DIII schools.

While it is a good thing for college athletics that so many schools wish to embrace the DIII philosophy, the division does get too big at some point.  Getting tournament play beyond certain levels (64 in most sports) stretches post-season play beyond what it can do.  This division demands that its participants be student-athletes and attend class, do projects, etc.  There has to be a balance there. 

The NCAA task force on divisions will look at a lot of different things in the next couple of years, and it may surprise people how many schools may opt for a non-national championship division.  I was surprised at that number when the idea was floated at the 2004 convention.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)


I agree with Frank.  Bust up the whole thing.  If d3 were really focused on higher aims there shouldn't be national championships at all.  As much as I love them, I'd be ok with that.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Hoaf

#666
You guys should check out the book "Reclaiming the game" talks a little about the detrimental effect athletes can have on smaller schools like Wesleyan, Williams, and Bowdoin.

Check the link: Edited to shorten link
Hoaf

Ralph Turner

#667
I clicked on the link and found that as former president of Princeton Dr Bowen has written extensively about the matters concerning higher education.  The examples of the colleges are not necessarily those that I would consider strong examples of aggressive intercollegiate activities.   I thought that this title was particlulary interesting from the late 1970's.  Performing Arts, the Economic Dilemma: a Study of Problems Common to Theater, Opera, Music and Dance by William J Baumol and William G Bowen

The title seems to convey a sense that overt competition in which there are winners and losers is bad.  We know that the NESCAC has been a very loose configuration of schools relative to most other conferences in D3.  They do not compete for the national football championship.  They seem to downplay competition and the competitive nature of their athletes even more than most of their strata of schools.

I once heard a lecture by the communications consultant, Pat Heim.  Her book, Hard Ball for Women, describes competition for women with several analogies.  Her famous phrase, "Nobody ever wins at dolls" is a classic.   Another example involves the way that girls play the game "4-Square" versus the way that boys play the game.  For boys, the game is to get to the 4th square. Alliances are formed and broken, all for the goal of getting to the fourth square.  For girls, the game is to establish a stable system of relationships.  If four girls are in the game among 10-15 other girls, the four girls will work to get their group of four to playing the game.  They will work to get out the other girls until only their clique is playing.  If there is a mis-hit, the girls will cry for a "do-over" to prolong the game.  Rather than "genderizing" this, I prefer to call the 2 behaviors blue and pink, because they are not exclusively related to gender.

It seems that these authors are talking about the impact of "pink" versus "blue" systems in competition.

One begs the question is why does Princeton even offer intercollegiate athletics and why did President Bowen not abolish it.

My other thought is that people whose primary intelligence is "academic" are jealous of those individuals whose primary intelligence is "kinesthetic".  Those social science departments that are doing research in the various intelligences are probably just wasting the universities' resources.   :D :D :D :D :) ;)

Warren Thompson

#668
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 05, 2007, 11:49:44 PM
We know that the NESCAC has been a very loose configuration of schools relative to most other conferences in D3.  They do not compete for the national football championship.  They seem to downplay competition and the competitive nature of their athletes even more than most of their strata of schools.

While the NESCAC's refusal to compete in football playoffs remains a mystery, at least to me, its members certainly have no qualms about going for the "walnut and bronze" in other sports.

[Could this be a paradigm of "cognitive dissonance"? ;)]

Ralph Turner

Quote from: Warren Thompson on February 06, 2007, 07:48:58 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 05, 2007, 11:49:44 PM
We know that the NESCAC has been a very loose configuration of schools relative to most other conferences in D3.  They do not compete for the national football championship.  They seem to downplay competition and the competitive nature of their athletes even more than most of their strata of schools.

While the NESCAC's refusal to compete in football playoffs remains a mystery, at least to me, its members certainly have no qualms about going for the "walnut and bronze" in other sports.

[Could this be a paradigm of "cognitive dissonance"? ;)]

I think that many of those NESCAC athletes would confide, only with great reluctance, that they experienced the "pink" versus "blue" phenomenon.

However, it is okay to compete if the only people playing the game at that level are your friends, and you can re-establish the "relationship", to the exclusion of the "outsiders".  If you mess up, you just plead for a "do-over". ;D

I still think that the decision by Swarthmore to drop football was a manifestation of this and action by the "pinks" to limit the number of "blues" on the campus, by eliminating the focus of "blue" activity.

Bob Maxwell

Wow, this is getting rather complicated...

The comment about why Princeton even offers intercollegiate athletics is very pointed to where this conversation has gone.  It is because of the social aspect collegiate athletics offers to the quality of campus life.  Think of what your image is of college sports... not from the modern day grab all the money you can model of D-I football and basketball... but back to the 1950's when the image is of the student body and alumni in their long coats, with their school letters on their sweaters, waving a school penent while sitting together cheering on the team!!!

Some how that has been lost, but it can still be found in some areas...  and I think that some of the D-III schools and conferences have held on to it more then the large D-I super conferences.  Maybe not like in the vision I painted above, but at least the spirit of it.

Also, without championships of some level... I would feel lost.  As that is what makes the spectatorship worth while.

Just my two cents...

Bob Maxwell

Guess I'm a blue activity person as I much prefer competition for conference, regional and national championships...

Conferences (at all levels) and D-III work extremely well when the blue activity people who complete with in them... can also display 'pink" tendencies when it comes to the cooperative things that need to be done to govern a gropu larger then 1.

If the "blue" personality people can get past the jealousey and agression that competition brings out in "blue" tendency people... and exhibit the "pink" traits in conference dealings then the conference will be highly successful and benefit everyone.

;)

Ralph Turner

#672
Bob, thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

I found a reference on multiple intelligence theory that will work for these discussions.

I had 3 kids who competed for various reasons.

My "pink" son competed on the swim team in high school because he liked the relationships with his teammates, until there was a coaching change who changed the focus of the team.

My "blue" daughter really wants to win every game she has ever played... soccer, softball, miniature golf.  :D

My "pink/blue" softball pitcher would pitch inside to back the batter off the plate, but really enjoyed the "girls on the team" and did not wish to pitch at any other level of softball than "recreational" even tho' 3 of her softball teammates got D-1 soccer scholarships.

ADL70

SPARTANS...PREPARE FOR GLORY
HA-WOO, HA-WOO, HA-WOO
Think beyond the possible.
Compete, Win, Respect, Unite

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)


So which d3 school has a 40,000 student enrollment?
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere