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.

Ralph Turner

Mr. Ypsi, it looks as tho' we have had no takers on your question.  (I did not believe that I could answer as precisely as needed, either.)

I will try to find someone who can answer the question.

It is certainly a good one.

ronk

Mr Ypsi,
   Thanks for your response; looks like I should have brought it up during the bball season when we might have had some contributors rather than during the recruiting season, which is the bball off-season. Ralph hasn't failed in the past to find an answer to whatever he was researching.

Ralph Turner

Quote from: ronk on June 20, 2009, 08:34:42 PM
Mr Ypsi,
   Thanks for your response; looks like I should have brought it up during the bball season when we might have had some contributors rather than during the recruiting season, which is the bball off-season. Ralph hasn't failed in the past to find an answer to whatever he was researching.
Actually ronk, Mr Ypsi asked me if I knew any sources, because I had not responded in the last five days.

I have tried to contact a few experts, at Mr Ypsi's encouragement, to answer your question.

Thanks

:)

joehakes

Ralph asked me to help with this conversation.  I hope that I can shed some light on it.

These questions have both simple and complex answers.  The actual idea is that athletic participation would have no bearing on financial aid, but currently it is being interpreted that athletic ability should have no influence.  That is a subtle but very important difference which is being debated constantly.  The NCAA uses a very sophisticated computer analysis of an institution's aid awards to compare apples and apples.  It compares student of like financial and academic backgrounds to assess compliance.  You could have a team that is well over the "general student" average but happen to have strong academic credentials or high financial need. 

Could a school "game the system" by overawarding in one sport and screwing members of other teams?  First, how long do you think they would keep the coaches in the under-aided sports and how quiet would they be about it?  Second, the report is broken down by teams so that would show up.  The need based aid is probably a little easier to fudge, the academic aid is pretty quantifiable.

In the few years now that the audit has been conducted, the number of schools that go to the next levels of audit have become fewer and fewer, so it seems to be doing what it was intended to do. 

I do think that the question of ability vs. participation in awarding aid is something that needs some forward thinking.  Most places reward students for all kinds of things they did in high school but are told they cannot do that for athletic leadership or participation.  This goes against the idea that student-athletes should be treated no differently than other students, and says that they can only not be treated more favorably.  That is a  bigger issue to me.

I hope this helps.

Ralph Turner

#1579
Thanks Joe.

I hope that answers the question.

Also last night, we had one poster comment on D-III becoming a "private school" division and complain about the distribution of aid in private schools.  He complained about disparities in aid that is given to students in private schools versus public schools. 

I think that Joe's answer implies that the NCAA is also looking at similar issues.

As for the schools in the "provisional pipeline", 20 schools have expressed interest in becoming full members of the NCAA in the next 5 years; 6 are public and 14 are private.  That is not a statistically significant ratio that varies from the current composition.



EDIT:  See mans007 question below.

Ralph Turner

I have moved mans007 question to this board.  Thanks.

Quote from: mans007 on June 21, 2009, 12:45:59 AM
The NCAA needs to do something about private schools in athletics.  I may be the first to bring light to this problem, but it is becoming very large.  Public institutions as we all know can only give "need based" financial money to all students because they are using tax payers money.  Private schools can give money to whomever they see fit.  6 out of the 8 teams in the d3 world series are private institutions. So when you talk about d3 athletes being pure student athletes that is not accurate.  For example, a private institution can give a minorty student a full ride just for being a minority. A public school does not have the same luxury. Have you ever heard of the "blonde hair blue eyed scholarship"?  This is a growing problem that needs attention. D3 athletics is becoming a private school division.

Pat Coleman

6 of 8 is the same ratio as Division III overall.
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.

Mr. Ypsi

An interesting argument by mans007 - the overwhelming 'complaint' by posters over the years is that the public schools have an unfair advantage due to lower tuition and (often, not always) lower admission standards.

Tennessee_papa

We just went through the recruiting thingy with our second oldest.  Our oldest just finished her sophomore year in college.  Due to the circumstances specific to our situation, I think I can add some perspective to this.

Our oldest is not an athlete, but presented a very strong academic profile (verbal SAT in the mid 750's, top 5% of her class, etc.) and was very strong in one aspect of the arts.  She ended up attending an SCAC school and received a very generous scholarship package that effectively allowed her to attend a private school (call it SCAC school A) with us having to pay approximately half of what we would have paid at a public school.

The second oldest was recruited by three SCAC schools and one ASC school to play a sport.  Her academic profile was solid, but not as strong as her sister's.  One of the SCAC schools that recruited her was the school that her sister attends, and she was offered a scholarship package from shat school that was approximately 50% of what her sister was offered.   She ended up deciding to attend a different SCAC school, which also offered her a scholarship package, and that package was within 10% of what she (the younger kid) was offered by school A. 

So, the best I can tell, these two schools handled the admission of an athlete and a non-athlete in a manner that is consistent with their public posture and with the rules - i.e., no consideration was given to the athletic ability of the second kid. 

Ralph Turner

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 21, 2009, 04:50:27 PM
An interesting argument by mans007 - the overwhelming 'complaint' by posters over the years is that the public schools have an unfair advantage due to lower tuition and (often, not always) lower admission standards.

To wit, UT-Tyler, the newest member of the ASC.

Tuition for UT-Tyler for Fall 2009 will be $3021 for 15 credit hours.  Books, fees, room and board are also favorably priced.

This totally destroys the cost-structure in the ASC and especially the ASC-East.  The private schools will be be about $5-7K more expensive, even after every discount and scholarship the average student can get.

UTT only offers the most popular sports in  Director's Cup standings. By ranking of schools offering the various sports in the Director's Cup, here is UTT's offering.

There are 429 active members in the NCAA (plus 15 provisional).  The number of schools offering these sports listed are first.  The rank in popularity of the sport by gender follows.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/NCAA/About%20The%20NCAA/Membership/Our%20Members/membership_breakdown.html

Sport Men   /  Women

Baseball                    373  #3 /-
M/W Basketball   412    #1  /436 #1
M/W Golf              284  #6         /164  #11
M/W Cross Country   372 #4     / 393  #5
M/W Tennis              325  # 5          /  371  #6
M/W Soccer             401  #2          /   424  #2
Softball                   -      /  408  #4
M/W Volleyball        -      /   423  #3
M/W Outdoor T&F   267  #7/   274  #7

(As you can see, UTT is not getting "beau coup points" in less commonly sponsored sports like Field Hockey 158 teams W,  Lacrosse 151 M  / 180 W, Ice Hockey  73 M/ 46 W.  I really object to Bowdoin getting 100 points in Field Hockey for winning a championship over only 158 sponsoring schools or Neumann earning 100 points for defeating only 73 schools in Men's Ice hockey,  while National Champion George Fox Women beat 436 schools in basketball, nearly 6 times as many foes, and got the same 100 Directors Cup points.  But, that is another discussion.)

I believe that the 33rd place in this year's Directors Cup bests the previous highest ever by an ASC team, surpassing #41 in 2008 by McMurry.

UTT earned 50 points for a 31st in baseball,  80 pts for a 4th in Men's golf, 36 points for a 19th in women's golf, 50 points for 17th place each in men's and women's tennis, 78 points for a 5th in softball and 50 points for a 17th in men's soccer.

Ralph Turner

Cost containment initiatives at D-2.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+ii/division+ii+proposes+contest+reductions+in+eight+sports_06_29_09_ncaa_news

QuoteA series of proposals that would shorten playing seasons and reduce the maximum number of contests in eight sports is on its way to the Division II Management Council for review later this month.

...

Ralph Turner

Former D-III member Chowan joins the CIAA.

Lincoln PA also joined the CIAA when it reclassified to D-II.

Ralph Turner

#1587
Double AA Zone blog...

Ruling could impact Title IX proportionality interpretation - Jun 24, 2009 | 14:50:48


http://www.doubleazone.com/2009/06/ruling_could_impact_title_ix_proportionality_intrepretation.php#comments

QuoteRuling could impact Title IX proportionality interpretation - Jun 24, 2009 | 14:50:48
posted by: Marta Lawrence


Yesterday we celebrated the 37th anniversary of the adoption of Title IX. As I worked on a timeline detailing the history of the legislation, I was struck by how recent the struggle for equality has been.

And, the debate continues. Just last week, a California court issued a ruling related to Title IX that could have lasting implications for universities around the country.

Traditionally, judges have ruled that a school is compliant with Title IX if the proportion of female participation comes within five percent of the representative population of the school. So, in the past, if a school's population was 50 percent female and 50 percent male, the university would be seen as compliant if just 45 percent of its athletes were female.

But, the ruling between the UC Davis and three female student-athletes, requires that the university come within 1.5 percent of proportionality. If it stands, the change could have a lasting impact on universities around the country.

...

Here are my comments on that blog.  I have corrected a math misstatement from the blog.  Nevertheless the implications to  mathematical compliance are staggering.

Quote
Comments

I went to this web site to review UC-Davis' data on athletics and participation.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

Here are the data from that site.

UC Davis has 10,092 men and 12,950 women.

That is a 43.7% male/ 56.3% female ratio.

Let's assume that the 1.5% tolerance is an actual 0% number.

Currently, there 337 men playing sports and 340 women playing sports at UC-Davis.

To achieve a 43% ratio for men relative to 340 women playing in 13 intercollegiate sports listed, one needs to cut the number of men participating in intercollegiate athletics to 263 males or increase the number of women participating to the current 337 by 101 athletes to 438  ERRATA: to the current 340 by 101 athletes to 441.

Re-stated, to maintain the same 43.7% male/ 56.3% female in the general student body,

one can keep the male athletes' number the same at 337 and add 101 females, or

one can keep the female athletes' number the same at 340 and cut 74 male athletes, or

achieve compliance with the court's ruling over the next 10 years by some combination of cutting men's sports and adding women's sports.

In light of the budget problems of the State of California, it seems that the most fiscally prudent way to achieve compliance will be to eliminate a large number of male sports.

Wydown Blvd.

Relatively nteresting stuff today on Espn's college basketball page about the relationship between Twitter, social networking, and college recruiting. D3 gets a very brief nod at the end in one of the two articles on the topic.

Jonny Utah

ESPNs Mike and Mike show this morning had the president or leader of the BCS division 1 football series.  Guy from Nebraska and I cant remember his name.  Anyway, Mike and Mike start talking about how d1 has used the excuse of "academics" as a reason not to have a playoff system.  They then point out that d2 and d3 students also have to handle academics and have a playoff system.  The BCS guy actually said something to the effect of a lot of d2 and d3 leaders actually want a bowl system!

Just a bunch of BS.  Dont know if its archived on espn, but its an interesting bit.  They also had Orin Hatch earlier (or yesterday, I missed it) talking about the other side.