Future of Division III

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Ralph Turner

#960
Good morning, Frank!

Thanks for the response.  I stumbled at the word subliminal, and not having my trusty paperback Thesaurus at my side, I used that word anyway.  I still think that it is most accurate.

As we have seen and read the stories in the media, the examples that are used to justify the secession do not seem to be internally consisent.  I refuted that access to the playoffs in this post.  There is generous representation of "D-IV's" among the at-large bids.

If Mr Gehling's comparison to March Madness is an excellent example of how to get more "really good teams" into the basketball championship, then he is describing a mechanism that increases emphasis on the sport.  The NAIA would give the 10-member NESCAC 2 AQ's and have eligible teams competing for more at large bids. Some strong NAIA conferences have 3-4 teams in the playoffs routinely.  However, we have not seen or read any official support or even "background rumblings" for a playoff access ratio of 1:6 or 1:5, so more deserving schools can get into the playoffs.

I thought that johnnie_esq came close to describing this "elephant in the room".  On a regional basis, what would happen in New England?

For the sake of an example, I will pick on the new kids on the block, the New England Athletic Conference (NEnAC). After the D-IV secession has occurred, let's assume that the NESCAC has gone to D-IV.  The requirements are no non-traditional season activity ("spring training"), limited "athletic recruiting", and 18 sports.

Who looks around their environment and sees their peers and wannabe-peers?  Does the New England Region of D-IV include the NESCAC?  And the NEWMAC?  And the MASCAC and the Little East?  What about the GNAC or CCC?  The decisions made by the member institutions may be to promote club swimming and intramural track and field, golf and tennis to varsity sports to fulfill the requirement.  (Eighteen sports?  Cross Country, Soccer, Basketball, Swimming, Golf, Tennis, T&F, Baseball/Softball make 16, and then select from Volleyball, Lacrosse, Field Hockey, Football, Ice Hockey, etc., as needed.)  We have continued escalation of the "student-athlete industrial complex" because the individual institutions see themselves as (potential) peers of the NESCAC and not the NEnAC.

I guess I just see the same group of schools that moved to D-III 35 years ago looking around to see what happened to their neighborhood.  Every news story mentions the influx from the NAIA, but no one comes out and says "we don't want to affiliate with most of the new membership in D-III".

That is what I mean by subliminal.

Thanks and have a good day. :)

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)


I'm not sure how the details would work out, but I'd be comfortable with a D3A and D3AA playing towards one national championship, as the article suggested.

My main concern is the smaller schools getting trampled in this mess and having access (albeit a smaller chance) to the national championship would satisfy most of my issues.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Ralph Turner

Quote from: Hoops Fan on July 30, 2007, 10:16:02 AM

I'm not sure how the details would work out, but I'd be comfortable with a D3A and D3AA playing towards one national championship, as the article suggested.

My main concern is the smaller schools getting trampled in this mess and having access (albeit a smaller chance) to the national championship would satisfy most of my issues.

Good morning, Hoops fan!  :)

I don't see the logistics in a D-3A and a D-3AA determining their championships and then adding another game or series, 1-7 days later for a "Grand Championship", possibly in another venue for one of the participants.

Some of the current complaints from various conferences are the length of the seasons.  The Midwest Conference cuts its seasons short by 10%.  The MWC regular season in Basketball is only 22 games.  The Grand Championship goes against this.

I specifically need the accountants to tell me the variable cost of the next (435th) member of Division III is more expensive to administer than the costs of the separate 110 members in D-IV plus the cost of the new, 325th member in Division III.  After all, is not this most likely driven by the amount of crumbs that fall to the floor from the NCAA Division I March Madness contract to Division III, and potentially Division IV?  :)

Thank you to all who have contributed to this discussion.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)


I was thinking more of D3A and D3AA having a certain number of bids to the one national tournament.


Honestly, the ideals of D3 should just lend itself to the old "Win your conference or don't make the national tournament" format.  I'm fine with that, all it really does is extend the single elimination tournament to the conference tournaments.

You may see some conferences cut out the conference tournament if it went to this format, but to me it lets everyone have a chance to get in without penalizing the poor conferences whose champions rarely, if ever, have any shot at all.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Knightstalker

I know how we can get all the really good teams into the basketball postseason and make sure no one gets left out.  A single elimination tournament that all 450 some D-III schools are invited to.  No one left out everyone gets a chance. 

"In the end we will survive rather than perish not because we accumulate comfort and luxury but because we accumulate wisdom"  Colonel Jack Jacobs US Army (Ret).

joehakes

Quote from: Knightstalker on July 30, 2007, 12:48:44 PM
I know how we can get all the really good teams into the basketball postseason and make sure no one gets left out.  A single elimination tournament that all 450 some D-III schools are invited to.  No one left out everyone gets a chance. 

If you figure it that way, you would have a play-in with 94 games and then 8 rounds of tournament play.  That is a looooong tourney.

While it may appear to be only championships related, the possible split does have something to do with philosophical issues and program size.  The influx from the NAIA in the past several years has brought in smaller enrollments, smaller programs (# of sports) and different attitudes on DIII issues. 

There will be several other options that will be floated.  The post describing New England's possible shifting around is pretty good.  There will have to be some self-selection but within quantifiable parameters.  That will be a tricky thing to do. 

In the meantime, this is really a good discussion and should be kept up.  The real meat of the issue will come at a time closer to the next Convention when there will be more models put forth for consideration.  DIII is not going to be able to stay as it is, especially if the moratorium on new membership is lifted, as expected.

frank uible

#966
Of course, Amherst, the 2007 national DIII basketball champion, suffered a defeat in its conference's single elimination 2007 tournament.

Wydown Blvd.

To add to that:
Its obvious that "the old 'Win your conference or don't make the national tournament'" format would hurt the great basketball conferences (WIAC, UAA, NESCAC, CCIW). Take the women's final four as an example. WashU and NYU tie for conference champions (Wash U wins the AQ). So under the "win conference or else" format, NYU doesn't go to the final four. I think at-large bids are super-necessary.

Knightstalker

Joe, I was only joking.  I just wish the schools would be honest about why they are considering a split instead of using the excuse of the week.

If they are truly opposed to D-III as it is currently constructed maybe they need to consider leaving the NCAA altogether and forming a new governing body that conforms to what they consider proper standards.

"In the end we will survive rather than perish not because we accumulate comfort and luxury but because we accumulate wisdom"  Colonel Jack Jacobs US Army (Ret).

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

Quote from: frank uible on July 30, 2007, 02:01:33 PM
Of course, Amherst, the 2007 national DIII basketball champion, suffered a defeat in its conference's single elimination 2007 tournament.

Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on July 30, 2007, 02:13:24 PM
To add to that:
Its obvious that "the old 'Win your conference or don't make the national tournament'" format would hurt the great basketball conferences (WIAC, UAA, NESCAC, CCIW). Take the women's final four as an example. WashU and NYU tie for conference champions (Wash U wins the AQ). So under the "win conference or else" format, NYU doesn't go to the final four. I think at-large bids are super-necessary.
]

I'm ok with these scenarios, although I would guess the power conferences may rid themselves of a conference tournament if this were the case.

I just think the argument that two equally talented teams from one conference should both have access to the national championship is contrary to the d3 philosophy.  Whether it's one and done in the conference tourney or one and done in the national tourney, each of these teams still has a chance.

This is the same question the big dance faced with the ACC in the 70's.  I'd like d3 to choose another path.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Wydown Blvd.

Quote from: Hoops Fan on July 30, 2007, 02:43:36 PM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on July 30, 2007, 02:13:24 PM
WashU and NYU tie for conference champions (Wash U wins the AQ). So under the "win conference or else" format, NYU doesn't go to the final four.

I'm ok with these scenarios, although I would guess the power conferences may rid themselves of a conference tournament if this were the case.

I just think the argument that two equally talented teams from one conference should both have access to the national championship is contrary to the d3 philosophy.  Whether it's one and done in the conference tourney or one and done in the national tourney, each of these teams still has a chance.

This is the same question the big dance faced with the ACC in the 70's.  I'd like d3 to choose another path.

In my example, the UAA does not have a conference tourney. WashU earned the AQ. I don't see how it is in the d3 philosophy to not allow conference co-champions an opportunity in the big dance. (excuse the necessary double negative). How is one in done in the conference tourney (within power conferences) even comparable to one and done in the early rounds of the national tourney? Obviously different conferences are apples and oranges which is why we are having this debate in the first place.

Pat Coleman

Quote from: Hoops Fan on July 30, 2007, 11:57:17 AM

I was thinking more of D3A and D3AA having a certain number of bids to the one national tournament.

Fairly certain this defeats the entire purpose of a split. Why would you go through all the work of splitting into two groups that don't want to be associated with the other, then have one joint championship?
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

Knightstalker

Because you have to play nice with your red-headed step-brother.

"In the end we will survive rather than perish not because we accumulate comfort and luxury but because we accumulate wisdom"  Colonel Jack Jacobs US Army (Ret).

PA_wesleyfan

#973
I know that this would be a huge task.  But how accessible is this info to attain?
Enrollment, Student to student athlete ratio, Tuition. Success  year to year.  I think you'll find that size of school doesn't always trascend into wins and loses.

I also would like to contend that we have seen a separation in the last few months of those schools who have  changed conferences on academic issues and that those who attend those schools look at both sides of the issues before condemning the smaller schools.

Hoops Fan

I believe that the schools involved in conference playoffs are well aware of the circumstances of losing in a playoff
Football !!! The ultimate team sport. Anyone who plays DIII football is a winner...

johnnie_esq

Quote from: Knightstalker on July 30, 2007, 02:14:16 PM
Joe, I was only joking.  I just wish the schools would be honest about why they are considering a split instead of using the excuse of the week.

If they are truly opposed to D-III as it is currently constructed maybe they need to consider leaving the NCAA altogether and forming a new governing body that conforms to what they consider proper standards.

C'mon, why do that when the NCAA Division I basketball tournament will pay your expenses for you if you stay NCAA?

The NAIA converts came to the NCAA for a reason, among them-- costs.  The D2 schools moved to D3 for a reason, among them-- reduction in costs.  An unaddressed problem with the D-IV proposals and D3-AA proposals?  Costs.  Do you want to be the one who goes to the D1 schools and asking "excuse me, but would you mind giving us loss-leaders more of your money to start our own division within the NCAA?"

There is a chance, given the academic calibre of some of the schools requesting the dough, that the D1 members will go for it.  But I'm pretty skeptical that this will go through as such until a reasonable funding mechanism is determined.  Can you imagine running D-IV with one-third of the D3 budget?  What about running D-3 with only 2/3rds of its current budget?

Can we really say there is but one D-3 philosophy anymore?  The only thing that all D-3 schools seem to agree upon is no scholarships based solely on athletics.  But beyond that it gets hairy, especially in regard access to playoffs, student-athlete eligibility, and season length.
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