Future of Division III

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

joehakes

The general consensus in DIII is more aimed at either reducing the size of the division or at least halting growth.  Adding 30+ teams to the tournament would stretch it out so long that there would have to be a reduction in the number of regular season games to make it work.  Strengthening DII is actually a boost for DIII.  More NAIA schools have DII-like profiles in their athletic departments than DIII profiles.  Narrower focus on the number of programs and of course, scholarships.


johnnie_esq

#646
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 02, 2007, 01:03:16 AM
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.

I guess I don't understand the "clout" angle.  D3 is the pauper because of revenue purposes.  Adding 30-40 more schools won't necessarily add revenue the NCAA is looking for (reading between the lines: TV revenue).  There are far more schools in D3 now than either D1 or D2, yet it isn't even in the ballpark (or golf course, for that matter) in terms of revenue disparity.  The clout issue is a non-starter to me, unless the D3 schools find a new revenue stream. (ad-supported internet TV perhaps?  I don't know)

The BCS conferences enjoy D3 because it allows a balance from college sports being big business (so they can testify to Congress as to how fair it is that they give all college sports a chance).  They don't want to spend a ton of money on it.  On the flip side, D3ers enjoy the NCAA since their championships are funded (unlike NAIA where the schools have to fund travel to championships themselves).   Thus, you won't find a great deal of schools willing to leave the NCAA and the "free" championships to force the "clout" angle-- and be willing to pay for a new association or travel in the NAIA.

I'm hoping the Boise State run this year will allow the BCS group to open up and expand itself.  Thus, the NCAA would have to seriously reexamine the D1 structure, especially with the D1-AA and D1-AAA (Championship Division as opposed to Bowl Division).  That, in turn, will force the NCAA to look at D2 and what to do with that, and in the process, bring D3 into the mix.  I just don't know if the BCS schools have the 1.) patience and 2.) desire to include a full NCAA restructure.  But if Myles Brand were smart, he could see that it is in the long-term best interest of the organization to undertake this now, 33 years after the NCAA last did an all-out restructure (only a few things have changed since then).

As a side note, I intentionally omitted RPI and CC (a fellow WCHA member to the U of MN).  They are D3 schools who have D1 hockey. The ones I listed are D2 members that have D1 hockey.
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)


I think the clout would come with a big tournament in a 500 team division.  With all the sports crap on tv right now, do you think there wouldn't be a market for a giant tournament with a bunch of "regular guys" paying for the right to play ball.  I think it would fly enough to get enough television and media coverage to pay for itself.

Right now a lot of the problems d3 has is that they are totally beholden to d1 revenues to operate post-season.  I think there would be a lot more clout if they could be financially self-sufficient.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

scottiedoug

I am a D3 fan in Tennessee, specifically Maryville, a member of a conference (GSAC) which cannot find enough D3 schools in the Southeast to make a league with enough men's teams to get an AQ for the NCAA tournament.  There are a good number of NAIA schools and D2 MCAA schools in the area but D3 is scarce.

So for us, maintaining limits on D3 entrance means there is no way for the GSAC to ever grow other than by other D3 schools leaving their current conferences, which is not likely any time soon.  Several schools that I think "ought to" be D3 because of the kind of schools they are (Berea, Shorter, Milligan, Berry, King....) instead are either NAIA (Berea, Shorter)  or moving from NAIA to D2 (King).

I am pretty sure our perhaps unique problem is not of great concern elsewhere, but I wanted to throw it into the conversation.

johnnie_esq

Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 02, 2007, 11:04:48 AM
Right now a lot of the problems d3 has is that they are totally beholden to d1 revenues to operate post-season.  I think there would be a lot more clout if they could be financially self-sufficient.

I strongly agree with you here.  But "revenue streams for athletics" often times is counter to the STUDENT-athlete philosophy of the division, so institutions aren't forthcoming to promote such streams, and when they do, can turn alumni off (see a SJU football scoring drive sponsored by Orville Redenbacher Popcorn).

They need to deliver the games to alumni in a way that preserves the nostalgia of the game-- if that means internet technology, so be it.  Perhaps streaming games live to a mobile phone would be the way to go? I don't know. 
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)


I'm not for generating revenues through the programs themselves.  I agree with you, that is very much counter do the student-athletics ideal.  However, a little media coverage for the post-season tournament can go a long way in paying for the cost of running the sport from an organizational perspective.

I just think a giant division with a really giant post-season tournament would have enough mass appeal to perhaps make d3 more self-sufficient.

Maybe it's the first step down a slippery slope that leads to 57 tv timeouts during games, but maybe its a way to influence the system a bit more.  I'm just presenting an idea.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Ralph Turner

#651
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 02, 2007, 09:18:59 AM

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.

Devil's advocate---

How big is big?  Four hundred schools in D3 is not big enough?  Do another 100 former D2's make it "bigger"?

The disparity in the facilities in the WIAC already makes it a challenge.  The ASC and SCAC would get killed in the "facilities arms race" with the Lone Star Conference.  And, the Heartland Conference teams have shown no inclination to move to D3!  They are perfectly happy traveling to Goodwell OK, Billings MT, Jefferson City MO or Wichita KS.

I don't think that encouraging bigger is better.  I think that there is a place for those 296 schools in the middle called D2.  Let's leave them there.

As soon as the March Madness money is gone, there will be a large number of D1's that move back to something different.  It is all about the money.

joehakes

Quote from: scottiedoug on February 02, 2007, 11:19:44 AM
I am a D3 fan in Tennessee, specifically Maryville, a member of a conference (GSAC) which cannot find enough D3 schools in the Southeast to make a league with enough men's teams to get an AQ for the NCAA tournament.  There are a good number of NAIA schools and D2 MCAA schools in the area but D3 is scarce.

So for us, maintaining limits on D3 entrance means there is no way for the GSAC to ever grow other than by other D3 schools leaving their current conferences, which is not likely any time soon.  Several schools that I think "ought to" be D3 because of the kind of schools they are (Berea, Shorter, Milligan, Berry, King....) instead are either NAIA (Berea, Shorter)  or moving from NAIA to D2 (King).

I am pretty sure our perhaps unique problem is not of great concern elsewhere, but I wanted to throw it into the conversation.

As the former AD at King, I can tell you that they had no interest in going DIII.  The college did not feel confident that it could draw students to the college without heavy financial aid.  The discount rate there at that time was 50% and it was the only way to get students there.  King wants to identify with a lot of the DII's in the area; Carson-Newman, Presbyterian, etc.  and so DII makes more sense for them.  Ironically, in the past four years they have added a lot of sports (wrestling, track, swimming, and others with lacrosse and field hockey in the bullpen) that really makes them have a more DIII type broadbased program.  But they would not entertain the idea of DIII.  I met with reps from DIII schools n the area (M'urlville included) to talk about forming a DIII conference with some of the TVAC (now AAC) schools and some of the DIII's in the area.  I wanted to pursue it, but the college admnistration did not.  So they will go DII eventually.

Pat Coleman

Quote from: scottiedoug on February 02, 2007, 11:19:44 AM
I am a D3 fan in Tennessee, specifically Maryville, a member of a conference (GSAC) which cannot find enough D3 schools in the Southeast to make a league with enough men's teams to get an AQ for the NCAA tournament.  There are a good number of NAIA schools and D2 MCAA schools in the area but D3 is scarce.

So for us, maintaining limits on D3 entrance means there is no way for the GSAC to ever grow other than by other D3 schools leaving their current conferences, which is not likely any time soon.  Several schools that I think "ought to" be D3 because of the kind of schools they are (Berea, Shorter, Milligan, Berry, King....) instead are either NAIA (Berea, Shorter)  or moving from NAIA to D2 (King).

I am pretty sure our perhaps unique problem is not of great concern elsewhere, but I wanted to throw it into the conversation.

These schools have had plenty of opportunity to move into Division III, yet none has seemed all that interested. Hard to blame the NCAA for that.

Meanwhile, your league keeps losing teams. Not the NCAA's fault either. :)
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.

Pat Coleman

Meanwhile, for everyone who is advocating the expansion of Division III -- how would you establish common ground and philosophies among 470-500 schools? This is already a problem with the size we are currently at. It would not get better by getting larger.
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.

Warren Thompson

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 03, 2007, 03:21:34 AM
Meanwhile, for everyone who is advocating the expansion of Division III -- how would you establish common ground and philosophies among 470-500 schools? This is already a problem with the size we are currently at. It would not get better by getting larger.

Well said, Pat. I suspect expansion would only increase the lacuna between the haves and the have-nots.

scottiedoug

When did I suggest or even imply that any of the GSAC's problems were the fault of the NCAA??

Coach C

Pat -

i am not sure that the expansion to 500 would substantially change the status quo.  The next 70 or so shcools that would be admitted (provided they are not current D2 schools) will have much in common with the last 100 or so that have been admitted.

I for one welcome the NAIA folks to our ranks.

D2?  Let 'em move to D1/

C

Pat Coleman

Quote from: scottiedoug on February 02, 2007, 11:19:44 AM
So for us, maintaining limits on D3 entrance means there is no way for the GSAC to ever grow other than by other D3 schools leaving their current conferences, which is not likely any time soon. 

You blamed the NCAA right here, Scottie.
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.

Pat Coleman

Quote from: Coach C on February 03, 2007, 02:38:21 PM
Pat -

i am not sure that the expansion to 500 would substantially change the status quo.  The next 70 or so shcools that would be admitted (provided they are not current D2 schools) will have much in common with the last 100 or so that have been admitted.

The status quo is a fragile peace, however. Splitting Division III came up a few years ago and it appears likely to come up again in 2008.

Adding another 70 schools would not make this better, I promise you. How has the older guard among the Division III membership reacted to the newer schools? I would say not well, considering the move to eliminate routine redshirting, a practice three of the more recently added conferences brought with them.

If you have trouble finding common ground among a smaller group, how would it be better in a larger group?
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.