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.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)


Well it's true.  They'll get a better idea if they let the moratorium expire.  However, I wonder how many schools will still hold off to see how this split talk works out.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Ralph Turner

I believe that I have identified some of the Pool A single sport conferences that are referenced above.

Women's Ice Hockey:

**ECAC Women's East Conference
**ECAC Women's West Conference

Men's Ice Hockey:

**ECAC East Conference
**ECAC Northeast Conference
**Northern Collegiate Hockey Association

**New England Women's Lacrosse Alliance

**Pilgrim (Men's Lacrosse) League

Corrections appreciated.

As I have reviewed some of the handbooks, it looks as if this legislation may be directed towards ice hockey and lacrosse.

Ralph Turner

#947
Legislative Proposals for the Jan 2008 Meeting

QuoteIn Division III, the Centennial Athletic and New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conferences (NEWMAC) have proposed eliminating text messaging (to prospective student-athletes), similar to actions being proposed in Divisions I and II.



In addition, the Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference (AMCC), the American Southwest Conference (ASC) and the Northern Athletics Conference (NAthCon) have proposed allowing more time to seek co-sponsors for legislation and to secure required president/chancellor approval.



Two other proposals deal with automatic qualification. The North Eastern Athletic (NEAC) and North Atlantic Athletic (NAC) Conferences want institutions that were provisional members before August 1 who have completed year one of their provisional membership and any institutions that become provisional institutions after August 1 to count toward the seven-institutions-sponsoring-a-sport requirement for conferences to receive automatic qualification.


The turmoil caused by the Landmark Conference shuffle seems to have prompted this legislation.  The NEAC and the NAC have seen member-loss to nearby conferences and IMHO they see this as a way that they can keep their AQ's.  IMHO, these conferences would be the easiest and quickest point of entry into the NCAA for these new "provisional" members in those parts fo the country.  It shall be interesting to see if this legislation passes.


The North Atlantic (NAC) and Massachusetts State College Athletic Conferences (MASCAC) also submitted a measure that provides flexibility regarding single-sport conferences maintaining AQ to national championships. The Division III Championships Committee has forwarded a governance proposal seeking a similar outcome.  (See above.)


It shall be interesting to see if there is a D-III/D-IV split on the voting on these amendments.

Ralph Turner

D-III Managment Council Supports Action on Male Practice Players

I spoke with a D1 women's hoops coach this week.  She was strongly in favor of male practice players for all of the reasons that the proponents have suggested.

She recalled being deep into the season and after sustaining injuries in key players a few years ago.  She and her assistants would have to practice to field a complete scrimmage squad. :-\

Let's hope that the Coach-Advocates can prevail on this.

tmerton


Ralph Turner

Thanks to y_ jack_lok  for the Newsweek article on the "D-IV Secession".  The article is attributed to Tufts' junior, Liz Hoffman who hopes that her school goes to III-A.

As we deconstruct this article, we see that the article does not deal with the D-III philosophy of (1) Regional emphasis, or (2) more emphasis on getting an education than the "semi-professional nature of the high-profile D-I sports of football, baseball, and men's and women's hoops. (3) The equal access apparently is not sufficient if a team cannot get an at-large bid, a la Division I March Madness.

Quote"Division I basketball is an example of a tournament that works well," said Bill Gehling,
Athletics Director at Tufts University, a Division III. "There are a lot of automatic bids to small teams from small conferences, but there are enough at-large bids that anybody who's truly a top-25 team in the country is going to get in. That's the best of both worlds, but it's not the case in Division III, and it's causing real problems."

The contention seems to be more about whom the schools are competing...the (NAIA) new kids on the block.

Quote"We're at odds philosophically with a lot of members in the division," said Dennis Collins, executive director of the North Coast Athletic Conference. "A lot of schools are in Division III because there's no place else to go. It's the cheapest road to the NCAA, which is considered the gold standard.

We say we need a long-range plan to determine how many members we want."


QuoteThe flood of these schools into the NCAA, which has accelerated since the mid-1990s, has not only strained the financial and logistical resources of Division III, but has created friction about the future viability of its core mission.

This seems to break into one of logistics.  The NCAC's Dennis Collins is quoted again...

Quote"Our personal view as a conference is that we'd rather see a new playing division, so that members that do have a different philosophy could go somewhere else," Collins said. "It would be a haven to them, and I think they'd feel much more comfortable there. In the process, we might lose 100 or 150 members and that would help Division III with its problems. It's the obvious answer to me, politically and practically."

The question may accurately be whether Mr Collins is wanting to lead the exodus of those 100 schools.

http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.829

David Collinge summarized the "dissatisfied" in the post above.  The "secession" of those schools would give about 100 schools for whom 11 Pool A bids and the next 5 at-large for a 16-team playoff.  Does that match the playoff ratio of the D-1 March Madness that was referenced in the article by Tufts AD, Mr Bill Gehling?



Knightstalker

Me thinks the author really does not understand Division III at all.  Does Miss Hoffman understand that if the division does split and a D IV is created or a A and AA subdivisions that the number of teams in the tournament will decrease?  If 100 or 150 schools leave you will still have deserving teams missing out on the tournament every year.

While a split may solve/cure some philisophical differences it will not fix deserving teams missing out on the championships because of the pool system, unless the pool system is also changed.

I also like how she uses UWW as an example, convenient when they serve a purpose.  I would think that Tufts would be philosophically opposed to a school like UWW in the same division with them if a split does occur.

"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).

Ralph Turner

The current playoff ratio in basketball is 1:6.5 until we reach 64 teams.

That 1:6.5 ratio would give a 16-team playoff for the 100-110 teams who would secede.  As per the post above, the "11 AQ's and the 5 at-large" allocation for the seceding teams is about the same from the current D-3 allocation of 37 Pool A +4 Pool B "AQ's and then 19 Pool C at-larges.  In the 2007 Men's tourney, there were 7 of the 19 Pool C bids awarded to schools from the conferences that David Collinge identified above.  It is not like they are not getting their bids

Perhaps the issue is football.  Most of the 100 teams and 11 conferences that are "seceding" have the Football AQ.  An 8-team/3 weekend playoff would leave someone home.  Moving to a 4th weekend gives one about 10 AQ's, one Pool B and 2-3 at-large (Pool C) bids, if the NESCAC doesn't participate.  The 2006 Pool C bids were given to the CCIW, the OAC, the MIAC, and, the WIAC.  The "D-IV's" were not disproportionately underrepresented there either.


This is clear then.  The at-large representation is not the issue.  The seceding teams just want to take their game and go elsewhere.  Apparently they are intolerant of the "diversity" that is D-III.

Knightstalker

It's my ball and I'm not playing with you anymore.  I'm going home!

"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).

Ralph Turner

Let's think out of the box...

What if there is (previously unreported) sympathy among the members of D3 for a playoff ratio that is beyond the current 1:6.5 and more akin to the NAIA...

--6-member conferences get one AQ
--10-member conferences get 2 AQ's
-- and there are at-large bids awarded beyond that.

This scenario is plausible with a "smaller" division, e.g., 300-odd members.

If we see the projected 450 D-3 members break into a "D-IV" of about 110 members in the 11 most likely conferences*, then remaining "340 D-3's" could expand the playoffs to 64-team or 32-teams formats as needed and as money is available.



*Please refer to David Collinge's Post outlining the various voting and sports-sponsorship blocs.

johnnie_esq

Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 29, 2007, 09:37:06 AM
This is clear then.  The at-large representation is not the issue.  The seceding teams just want to take their game and go elsewhere.  Apparently they are intolerant of the "diversity" that is D-III.

I think it can be put another way, and perhaps down an organizational theory slant-- these D-IV'ers tend to be decently successful in the current D-III and don't want that success to fall by the wayside by giving into such NAIA-like practices such as redshirting and spring practices.  They see themselves as "pure" D-IIIers, and don't want it to be diluted by adding such sport-concentrated policies that move toward the bigger athletic departments.  The emphasis in the MIAC about SJU's increasingly "active" athletic department (including really nice programs and over-sponsoring) has ruffled more than a few feathers in and around the conference, and even though the MIAC is a proposed D-IV conference, if they had to shed a team or two, SJU and UST (the two largest and biggest athletic departments) would be happily omitted by the rest of the conference. 

Given the increasing need for avenues to drive enrollment, especially male enrollment, successful sports programs will be all the more necessary.  These D-IVers are looking to protect their success by building a wall around themselves.  While that may be taking their ball and going home, it also is a smart survival strategy.

I do think football really drives this beast, and some of these conferences look around and ask why, say, the East region gets 8 playoff births wherein the third place team in the OAC could often finish first or second in that region.  But I think that is an effect of the reason, not the reason itself-- just ammunition that goes to the point of where the D-IVers want to go.
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

Warren Thompson

johnnie_esq, 'stalker, and Ralph:

Would it be premature to suspect that D3 could be headed for a period of disarray and turmoil?

johnnie_esq

Quote from: Warren Thompson on July 29, 2007, 04:22:54 PM
johnnie_esq, 'stalker, and Ralph:

Would it be premature to suspect that D3 could be headed for a period of disarray and turmoil?

I think it can be said that we are already in the middle of that period. It may have started when the Reform movement brought up its proposals a few years ago.  The end result is anyone's guess, but sometimes conflict brings out the best of all possible scenarios.  I am reminded of the article a few pages back about the situation in the early 1970s that brought the NCAA together into what we know of it today.

Again, what concerns me is that this is really a NCAA-wide problem, not a D-3 problem, and the NCAA will not take meaningful steps to approach a full solution.  So D-3 is left to band-aid itself instead of addressing the underlying problem.
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

#958
Quote from: johnnie_esq on July 29, 2007, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on July 29, 2007, 04:22:54 PM
johnnie_esq, 'stalker, and Ralph:

Would it be premature to suspect that D3 could be headed for a period of disarray and turmoil?

I think it can be said that we are already in the middle of that period. It may have started when the Reform movement brought up its proposals a few years ago.  The end result is anyone's guess, but sometimes conflict brings out the best of all possible scenarios.  I am reminded of the article a few pages back about the situation in the early 1970s that brought the NCAA together into what we know of it today.

Again, what concerns me is that this is really a NCAA-wide problem, not a D-3 problem, and the NCAA will not take meaningful steps to approach a full solution.  So D-3 is left to band-aid itself instead of addressing the underlying problem.
Johnnie, thank you for the opinion.  Your perspective as a very successful "D-IV" Johnnie program does reflect some of the sub-plots in this dilemma.  In fact, SJU has succeeded in this model quite handsomely.

The programs that are leading the charge already comprise the greatest percentage of Director's Cups and National Championships.  I still am impressed by the subliminal messages that I hear from the NCAC's and NESCAC's.

One might best imagine a cover story by The New Yorker.


QuoteHas NCAA Division III Lost Its Panache?

The cover story begins...

Besides national geographical proximity, what do Polytechnic, SUNY Maritime and NYU have in common?

frank uible

Ralph: More specifically what are those subliminal messages? I live roughly in the geographic middle of NESCAC country and have heard nothing of any nature on this subject. Perhaps my contacts don't know or aren't speaking.