Future of Division III

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Ralph Turner

#930
Historical piece about the re-organization of the NCAA in 1973.

The importance of consensus in the NCAA is mentioned as one of the unwritten rules.

One other comment about the evolution of the strata of schools that are debating this D-IV thing...

A friend and I were talking about the changing nature of the student-athlete at Trinity TX.  The tightening academic competition among incoming Trinity freshmen, the tightening financial aid packages for "1100 SAT" students and the increasing tuition are impacting the Trinity football program in ways not experienced in the late 1990's. 

If we translate this one anecdotal example into the environment in which D3's and the prospective D-IV's compete, we can imagine an "almost stellar" 1100 SAT  multi-talented, strong work-ethic, student-athlete of very modest means confronting $30,000 of tuition who gets "no financial package" at a "Trinity" then finds that s/he qualifies for $7-10K aid at "an ASC school" with a tuition of $20000.  Play this out over the 400+ schools in DIII, then we see that the guidelines that the NCAA promulgates cannot address the nuances that are played in real life.

I have plenty of friends who have doggedly worked to gain high positions in American business and professions in this less-than-traditional fashion.  Twenty years out of school, these upwardly-mobile former student-athletes have achieved much.  This topples the "standing order" and leads to the call for a new Division.

Ralph Turner

#931
The  State of Division II video short  with Dr Charles Ambrose, President of Pfeiffer University Charlotte, NC, Chair of the D-II Presidents' Council.

And we think that we have issues in D-III.

Candidly, one can review these frequent interviews, and it is just the same set of platitudes, packaged and repackaged...

However the comment that Division II will be there some days and not others is interesting.  I guess that I am missing his nuances...

Pat Coleman

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

Wydown -- Josh didn't attend Bucknell, he worked there. For three or four years, until late spring 2006, I think.
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.

tmerton

Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 04, 2007, 05:47:53 PM
Tmerton:

http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2007/01/08/d-iii-maintains-redshirt-practice-rules/

If I'm reading this right, then it looks like D3 didn't dodge the bullet that D1 did.

QuoteAmend (bylaw) 14.1.11 by adding new 14.1.11.1, page 91, as follows:
"14.1.11.1 Requirements. The use of male practice players
in a women's sport is subject to the following requirements:
"(a) Male practice players shall only be permitted to
practice in the traditional segment in the women's
sport;
"(b) The use of male practice players is limited to one
practice per week; and
"(c) In team sports, the number of male practice players
shall not exceed half of the number of student-athletes
required to field a starting unit in that sport."

Okay - under "the number of male practice players shall not exceed half of the number of student-athletes required to field a starting unit in that sport" - it looks like a women's basketball team can have a maximum of two male practice players.  Maybe D3 handles this differently than D1, but based on what I know when my son was on the practice squad at Notre Dame I'm sure this wouldn't have been acceptable there.  Sounds more like coed intramurals.

And what's "the traditional segment in the women's sport"?  Sounds like something a man would be embarrassed to ask for in a drug store.


Ralph Turner

Quote from: tmerton on July 04, 2007, 08:53:37 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 04, 2007, 05:47:53 PM
Tmerton:

http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2007/01/08/d-iii-maintains-redshirt-practice-rules/

If I'm reading this right, then it looks like D3 didn't dodge the bullet that D1 did.

QuoteAmend (bylaw) 14.1.11 by adding new 14.1.11.1, page 91, as follows:
"14.1.11.1 Requirements. The use of male practice players
in a women's sport is subject to the following requirements:
"(a) Male practice players shall only be permitted to
practice in the traditional segment in the women's
sport;
"(b) The use of male practice players is limited to one
practice per week; and
"(c) In team sports, the number of male practice players
shall not exceed half of the number of student-athletes
required to field a starting unit in that sport."

Okay - under "the number of male practice players shall not exceed half of the number of student-athletes required to field a starting unit in that sport" - it looks like a women's basketball team can have a maximum of two male practice players.  Maybe D3 handles this differently than D1, but based on what I know when my son was on the practice squad at Notre Dame I'm sure this wouldn't have been acceptable there.  Sounds more like coed intramurals.

And what's "the traditional segment in the women's sport"?  Sounds like something a man would be embarrassed to ask for in a drug store.
The "traditional segment" would mean the regular season for basketball.

I don't recall the amendment being passed.

The news release on July 16th may expound on the decision.

tmerton

Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 04, 2007, 08:59:47 PM

I don't recall the amendment being passed.

The news release on July 16th may expound on the decision.

Ah, yes, reading on [duh] it says it was referred back to committee.  Hopefully that's a way of killing it. 

johnnie_esq

Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 04, 2007, 04:21:31 PM
The  State of Division II video short  with Dr Charles Ambrose, President of Pfeiffer University Charlotte, NC, Chair of the D-II Presidents' Council.

And we think that we have issues in D-II.

Candidly, one can review these frequent interviews, and it is just the same set of platitudes, packaged and repackaged...

However the comment that Division II will be there some days and not others is interesting.  I guess that I am missing his nuances...

Good find and thanks for posting these, RT.

I think you are right on about the repackaging of platitudes.  In many ways it is simply a manifestation of institutionalization in a high-turnover system-- the NCAA's division chiefs know they won't be at their helms for very long, so they have to show they did something during their terms.  Ergo, they'll identify mission statement buzzwords and put them in the form of a hexagon and call it innovative and uniquely D-2.  Meanwhile, little of real substance actually gets done.  Process repeats then every couple of years.  I think his idea in not being there every day means that not every D-2 program fits the hexagon.  But it is supposed to!

I really think the D-IV debate could be cured by looking closer at D-2 and D-1.  If D-3 is "obese", D-1 has a patchwork of band-aids preventing real problems, and D-2 is bleeding profusely and lacks the band-aids.   For whatever reason, the D-2 schools are afraid to actually undertake real discussions to cure their ills. Meanwhile, D-1 schools are more concerned with ensuring the NCAA does not take any more of their football money than they already are and limiting the payouts to D-2 and D-3 from the D-1 basketball tourney, and seem to be generally indifferent to the plights of the other divisions.  Ironically, it is this indifference and cost-cutting toward other divisions which seems to have caused the current plight we are in-- it is not profitable to be in D-2, so those schools leave D-2 for D-1 or D-3; and the overmarketing of D-1 helps draw in credibility to D-3 schools, so schools leave the NAIA for the ability to say they are in the same group as the Big 10 schools et al.

The only reason the D-IV proposal has any legs at all is because it is being led by schools which have strong academic reputations, and allowing them to move out would "look bad".  It is a similar threat to what Darrel Royal was pulling in 1972-- if UT and the rest of the then SWC were to leave the NCAA, what a huge hit the NCAA would take, financially, competition-wise, exposure-wise (The modern compromise:  the BCS!).  But the difference between this one and back then is in the dollars-- UT and a network of big schools could afford to move on and fund their own group; while these D-IV leaders do not have the exposure to get the funds necessary to make the same thing happen.  Thus the threat is quite minimal compared to the Royal threat, especially given the requirement that D-1 schools essentially be asked to increase their "gifts" toward other divisions in their proposal. 

Which leads me back to the overarching question-- why are the BCS schools in the NCAA at all?  Seems to me they could be far more profitable in a BCS-school only association.  I keep coming back to a desire to mask their emphasis on the athlete part of the student athlete equation, and a legal desire to minimize antitrust concerns-- those schools "don't" control the NCAA, but their funding decisions wag the dog.

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

Ralph Turner

Great post, johnnie!  +1  :)

wilburt

Dr. Ralph: It looks like the nation's community colleges are facing the same challenges with athletic programs as many Division III schools are.  Check out link.

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i44/44a03101.htm
Fisk University: Founded by Missionaries, Saved by Students.

Six time SIAC Football Champions 1913, 1915, 1919, 1923, 1973 and 1975.

Six NFL draft picks and one Pro Bowler!

Ralph Turner

Quote from: wilburt on July 06, 2007, 08:19:19 AM
Dr. Ralph: It looks like the nation's community colleges are facing the same challenges with athletic programs as many Division III schools are.  Check out link.

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i44/44a03101.htm
Great article, wilburt!  Thanks for the link!  :)

Josh Bowerman

Outstanding post, Johnnie.  Very well put.
"Without struggle, there is no progress."--Frederick Douglass

Ralph Turner

July 16th News Release

Single Sport Conferences--

Here is the pertinent selection concerning the single-sport conferences.  I do not see how this will impact football at this time unless we have some schisms arising  in current alignments and among affiliates.  I can only speculate that some of the independents might form a basketball conference, although this does not seem to be a focus of the legislation.  However, I ask for contributors to identify areas where this legislation might be used to create a single-sport conference, and one that was not in existence in the 1998 and already has a Pool A Bid, e.g., the New England Football Conference.  My first impression is that this is geared towards some "minor sports", such as lacrosse or golf.

QuoteSingle-sport conferences with at least seven active members would be treated the same for championships purposes as multi-sport conferences under a proposal supported by the Division III Championships Committee.

The proposal would apply to existing single-sport conferences with seven or more active members as of February 1, 2008. The Division III Management Council will review the recommendation during its July 23-24 meeting and could recommend the proposal to the Division III Presidents Council for sponsorship at the 2008 Convention.

The championships committee, which met June 24-26 in Indianapolis, believes the proposal will help single-sport conferences continue to evolve. The proposal would permit a single-sport conference to receive automatic qualification to championships, provided its members do not also belong to a multi-sport conference that sponsors the sport.

It also would permit the formation of single-sport conferences in sports with low division-wide sponsorship, sports that recently have added a new championship and sports in those championships in which members' multi-sport conferences historically do not sponsor the sport.

The championship committee already had agreed during its January meeting that it is philosophically comfortable with accommodating single-sport conferences in emerging sports as the need arises.

There currently are 12 single-sport conferences in which automatic qualification is applicable for Division III-sponsored championships. The championships committee noted that eight of those leagues currently receive automatic qualification and two more could receive AQ under the proposal, based on their anticipated February 2008 membership.

Current legislation permits only single-sport conferences that have maintained the same original seven members since February 1998 to receive automatic qualification.
In a related discussion, the championships committee considered the possibility of permitting geographically isolated institutions to band together in a single sport for championships purposes. For example, seven or more geographically isolated institutions that belong to multi-sport conferences might be permitted to receive automatic qualification to a championship in a sport that isn't sponsored by those conferences.

The committee asked the Management Council to provide feedback on the topic.


Northern Athletics Conference--Denied a request to waive the second year of conference provisional status before receiving AQ.

Upper Midwest Athletic Conference--has five members in provisional status.  Request to begin provisional status as a conference early is denied.

Championships awarded--

2008 Women's Lacrosse to Salem VA.

2008 Swimming and Diving to Wooster.

2009 Wrestling to Coe, Cornell and IIAC to Cedar Rapids, IA.

Ralph Turner

#943
Having given some thought to the above post, Husson, Becker, Mount Ida and SUNY-Maritime could join the ACFC (Salisbury, Wesley and Frostburg St) to create a Pool A Single Sport conference.  This would have to happen muy pronto (by February 1, 2008).

Additional thoughts and/or corrections appreciated...

:)

The NEFC appears to be included in the "eight" single sport AQ conferences.  Whether this might apply to the IBFC is another thought that needs additional answers.

The article did not list the 12 single sport conferences (or eight Q's or two pending AQ conferences).

Ralph Turner