D3boards.com

General => General Division III issues => Topic started by: Ralph Turner on October 10, 2005, 07:27:51 PM

Title: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 10, 2005, 07:27:51 PM
D-3 Monthly Newsletter features Future of D-III and Proposed Legislation for the January 2006 National Convention.

The proposal caps the playoffs at 32 games for football and 64 for all other sports when the 1:6.5 ratio is reached.

There is also a proposal for conference realignment without loss of the Pool A from 1Aug 08 to 1Aug 10 after a 2-yr Self-Study from 1Aug06 to 1 Aug 08.

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/d3_newsletter/20050900_d3_newsletter.pdf
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 11, 2005, 09:18:04 AM

Thanks Ralph, that's a very interesting proposal.  I think ultimatetly it will be good for d3 sports, however, it seems like the NCAA lacks the ability to really enforce something like that.  It would ideally be great to realign the conferences and ensure that academic requirements are uniform, but is it a realistic option?

What are your thoughts?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 11, 2005, 10:51:20 AM
Hoops fan, I don't know which conferences are interested in re-aligning.  There have been several conferences formed in the northeast and Atlantic seaboard to access the AQ, which I think is great!!!  (Playing for a conference championship is much of what it is all about!)  Some of the "new" conferences in the area relative to the playoffs include the North Atlantic Conference, North Eastern AC, the Allegheny Mountain CC and the Atlantic Women's CC. 

If the ASC could re-align into some variation of the Middle Atlantic Corporation (MAC) for the sake of AQ's, I would love it. The ASC has enough teams for basketball but not enough for the other sports to make 2 full AQ conferences, especially with Austin College going to the SCAC.  (In the era of the AQ, the ASC-East has never received a Pool A or Pool C bid in women's hoops.) 

I speculate that the new Lake Michigan-NIIC will try to use
the legislation in their discussions.

Would the UAA use the legislation to add affiliates (from the NCAC?) to earn a football AQ?

Are there conferences in the Northeast Region that need to realign geographically in consideration of all sports?

What about the conferences in the East region realigning for football AQ sake?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 11, 2005, 03:13:35 PM

Football will never be big enough in the NE to force any sort of realignment.  I think the current line-ups (LEC, CCC, NEWMAC) mesh well in terms of overall makeup of the schools.  The LEC is mostly State schools, the CCC is mostly private schools with slightly higher academic bents and the NEWMAC is a wealthier, higher-profile version of the CCC.  The MASCAC is pretty cohesive, totally uncompetitive in basketball, but really nice in other sports.

I could see a lot of positives in the NAC and the GNAC trading some schools, probably better philosophical fits as well as for geographic considerations.  Honestly, I can't see there being much shake-up in the NE region.

Really, the NCAA should spend its time figuring out a better way to classify regions instead of realigning the individual conferences.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 11, 2005, 04:18:29 PM
Hoops fan, please email me off line.  I was not able to send an email to your nyironhorse  yahoo email.

Thanks
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on October 13, 2005, 10:17:13 AM
Ralph,   As you are probably aware, UAA and NCAC have a joint scheduling agreement for 08 and 09, mostly along geographic lines.  I have wondered if this could lead to 2 7-team conferences for football NC-U Football Alliance East and West akin to the MAC model you suggest.  The 4 UAA teams could still play for their own championship, but a playoff worthy team could have a shot at AQ.  NCAC teams could save in travel.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 13, 2005, 10:41:21 AM
CWRU70, as I understand the bylaws now, the UAA could qualify for a football AQ if they added 3 affiliates who would compete for the title in the UAA, just as Catholic competes for and won the ODAC title back in 1999.

Surely the UAA could find 3 affiliates from the NCAC to whom they would send an invitation. :)

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on October 13, 2005, 11:33:02 AM
Unfortunately, the agreed schedule doesn't provide 3 common opponents, and the 7-game NCAC sched wouldn't let a team compete for both titles.  Would OWU, Denison, and Kenyon switch (teams in the geographic middle)? If OWU joined UAA and stayed in a now 8 team NCAC playing 6 games, not a full round robin, it could be eligible for both.   Arguably OWU would have won the title of that reconfigured UAA last year, but that weakens the NCAC and still leaves UAA as a lower tier conference.  Under my idea Witt and Woo would have won the 2 conferences last year and had AQs.

If CWRU could schedule Allegheny in 08 and 09 (and week 2 is open for each) it would have 7 NCAC opponents and could compete for title (again) and AQ.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on October 13, 2005, 11:59:21 AM
I don't think those three teams listed would switch to the UAA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 13, 2005, 12:10:06 PM
I am sorry that I am not smart enough to see benefits of the system that I am recommending being replaced by mine. :)

I am certain that there are 3 NCAC schools who would appreciate competing in the UAA for a (better) chance at the AQ as a football affiliate than they have now.

I also am certain that there are 3 schools whom the UAA would like to add as affiliates to get a bid in a sport where they have not had one since 1999.

Two 7-member conferences would have 4 non-conference games to use to keep rivalries.  The net effect is that Pool B gets 4 more schools in its numerator and Pool A keeps 3 more schools in its numerator for the playoff allocation ratio and about one-half more bid in Pool C.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on October 13, 2005, 12:49:26 PM
Ralph, I don't think I'm smart enough to get the import of your first sentence 9perhaps it's the 2 nots) and I know I'm not smart enough to figure out the pool consequences.  It seems to me that my idea is easier to attain given the current scheduling.  And I would hope that decisions would be driven by seeking better overall competition rather than an easier path to an over-matched play-off game.  The UAA teams playing NCAC teams make it more likely that the champ would get a bid than with current schedules.  I look at WUStL ambitious scheduling (Mt U, Bash, W&J) as looking for better competition to boost play-off chances.

Smedindy, do you see any 3 that would switch?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 13, 2005, 02:05:54 PM
Good catch, CWRU70!  Since corrected...it did read obtusely!

I was presuming a simple premise that I (the UAA) want to (1) get the Pool A bid and (2) make certain that I have enough quality opponents (mission and vision included) as conferences start to expand and Pool B "at-larges"/independents join them.

If I choose Kenyon, I make sure that they understand it is football and not swimming. ;)

I ask Hiram and Oberlin thinking that it would be nice not "to have to" play Wabash Woo and Witt, all three in the same year.  Oberlin had a nice run in 2003 and another nice run just might win a UAA championship.

(I know nothing of the politics, "Mission and Vision", old rivalries, etc., but that what I was not smart enough to know.) :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on October 13, 2005, 02:31:20 PM
I just caught this from a recent issue of the NCAA news about the total NCAA membership, and the numbers of members across all levels.
http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2005/09_26_05/association_wide/4220n11.html

NCAA membership totals
(September 1, 2005)

Division I
   I-A    I-AA    I-AAA    Total
Active    117    118    91    326
Provisional    0    0    1    1

Voting

conference -- 11 -- 12 -- 9 -- 32

Nonvoting

conference -- 0 -- 2 -- 18 -- 20



Division II

-- Total

Active -- 282

Provisional -- 8

Voting conference -- 22

Nonvoting conference -- 2

Exploratory member -- 10



Division III

Total

Active -- 419

Provisional -- 18

Voting conference -- 44

Nonvoting conference -- 15

Exploratory member -- 18



Total

Division I -- 326

Division II -- 282

Division III -- 419

Provisional -- 27

Exploratory member -- 28

Voting conference -- 98

Nonvoting conference -- 37

Corresponding -- 14

Affiliated -- 71

TOTAL -- 1,303

Some of the trends here should be analyzed, as it appears that in the next 10 years, D3 will get bigger while D2 will approximately stay the same, given the inputs and number of schools reclassifying to D1.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on October 13, 2005, 02:46:21 PM
Ralph - The 'mission and vision' thing is the reason that I don't think Oberlin, Denison, etc. will jump. That and they are getting better.

OWU is a member of the 'big 5' of the NCAC and no way they'd go to the UAA.

Kenyon is on the uptick, as the game against Wooster demonstrated.

Earlham didn't even agree to play ANY UAA teams.

Oberlin is going to get better. In seeing them this past weekend, they are a year away from being a team that could go 6-4.

Denison has also improved over the past few years.

Sure, these programs are still a ways away from Witt and Wabash, but they're getting closer. A few years ago, many of these schools were at their nadir, and they're a lot better than that now.

I think Hiram would be the only one who may want to go to the UAA, but even they got a win this year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on October 13, 2005, 03:33:41 PM
The "mission and vision" thing is what the NCAC is all about.  The ten schools of the NCAC reflect a common philosophy of the role of athletics in the academic setting.  I realize that this is how D3 is defined as a whole, but I believe that it is the NCAC (along with the NESCAC and UAA) that is the least satisfied with D3 and has contemplated a "D4" that even further de-emphasizes sports as part of the collegiate experience.  Many, many posters know more about this than I (especially you, Ralph), and  I hope I am not mischaracterizing the situation.  But the botom line is that the NCAC exists as a conference of Ohio (or nearby) liberal arts colleges of similar academic mission and selectivity that have an attitude about the importance of sports that is not entirely shared by their neighbors.

Based on that alone, it would seem logical that the NCAC and UAA join forces; and in some degree they have (witness the football scheduling.)  But, as has often been discussed in these fora, the UAA is a horse of a completely different color.  The UAA schools share an academic philosophy that very few other D3 schools share (perhaps limited to CalTech and Johns Hopkins): the national research-oriented university.  The NCAC member schools are small, private, liberal arts, undergraduate-oriented colleges and universities, and as such do not fit within the UAA's "mission and vision."  The NCAC schools have a lot more in common with the NESCAC than with the UAA.

In other words, I don't think any NCAC school would be interested in leaving the conference, and I don't think the UAA would be interested in having any of the NCAC schools join their conference.  (Of course, one NCAC charter member school--Case Western Reserve--did in fact move from the NCAC to the UAA.  But Case's academic mission fits with the UAA and is significantly different from that of the NCAC.)

I also don't think that the NCAC would be interested in allowing some of its members to re-affiliate in just football, and remain NCAC members in the other sports.  The NCAC is an all-sports conference which offers 11 championships for each gender.  The whole idea of a member school leaving the conference in one sport simply to enhance their chances of success at that sport is contrary to the entire philosophy of the conference.   The NCAC is schools that get together to play sports, not an affiliation of sports teams.

Considering how strong and unified the NCAC is, I am continually surprised when I run across suggestions that Hiram go here or Allegheny go there or Oberlin go thither.  Suffice it to say I will be exceedingly surprised if any of the 10 member schools leaves the conference anytime soon.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 13, 2005, 04:04:41 PM
Well said.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on October 13, 2005, 04:35:55 PM
Likewise the UAA is a strong conference in other sports, just not football, where only 5 schools sponsor the sport and UofR decided that the Liberty League made more sense for it in football.  Hopkins also was a charter UAA member, but never competed in football.  Like CWRU originally, it didn't play a double round robin in hoops either.  CWRU did play double round robin in hoops in NCAC until it went to 10 teams in 2000.  The charter NCAC was Allegheny, CWRU, Denison, Kenyon, Oberlin, OWU, and Wooster.  OWU and Kenyon each have scheduled 3 UAA teams in 08 and 09.  The similarities between NCAC and UAA are greater than the differences.  From what I understand Tufts is more like UAA schools than NESCAC as well.

Hiram has been a gypsy having been in OAC, PAC, and NCAC.  The UAA hasn't been kind to them either, CMU beat them 44-0 and 45-0 the last 2 years.

My query was in response to the sentiment on the NCAC board that here wasn't much in the agreement for the NCAC teams.  The carrot of a second AQ was to give a reason for the NCAC teams to stick with the UAA and going to 6 conference games to give flexibility to keep traditional rivals or to add diversity.  I don't have any insight into why Earlham didn't play along.

All of this is driven by the limitations of UAA football.  The UAA competes on the national level in many sports, and CMU had several playoff appearances in football in the 8 team days.  They even had a win over Dayton, so it is possible for the teams to compete at that level in football again.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on October 13, 2005, 05:56:07 PM
The UAA has always struck me as a rather loose alliance, probably because their members were dual members in other conferences for a time.  Maybe it's a tighter coalition now; I wouldn't know.

There is no second AQ in the offing with the current NCAC/UAA scheduling arrangement.  As I understand it, the four western football-playing UAA schools would have to be members of the NCAC (bringing that conference to 14 members) for that to be a possibility.  I don't think that's very likely at all.  CMU and CWRU would probably be welcomed with open arms, but Chicago and (especially) WashU are a long, long way from Hiram, OH and Meadville, PA.  I doubt that the NCAC prexies would want to stretch their athletic travel budgets to that extent.  They might be swayed by the prestige of being affiliated with two of the most prominent universities in the country, but I don't think they'd be swayed by the possibility of a second playoff berth.  Just my 2c.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on October 13, 2005, 06:01:22 PM
David,

Go back to page 1 and see my first post on this topic.  I proposed 2 7-team football only conferences, out of the 14.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on October 13, 2005, 07:02:33 PM
Right.  I'm sorry, sometimes I'm not as clear as I mean to be (not a good trait for a lawyer.)  To sum up what I am trying to say:
1) I don't think there would be two 7-team conferences independent of one another, because I don't think any of the current NCAC teams would be interested in separating from the NCAC, and because I don't think the NCAC would allow any members to drop out for football (permanently) and stay in for all other sports.
2) I also don't think there would be one 14-team "super-NCAC," even in two seven-team divisions, because of the increased distances required to include WashU.  The most logical arrangements, disregarding rivalries and using only geography, would be:
East/North:  CMU, Allegheny, CWRU, Oberlin, Hiram, Wooster, Denison
West/South:  WashU, Chicago, Earlham, Wabash, Wittenberg, OWU, Kenyon
The E/N is a reasonable alignment, but there's a lot of travel time in that W/S division, especially for Kenyon (or, if you prefer, Denison.)  And most especially for WashU, but of course it's still less travel than what they are accustomed to.  Furthermore, I'd expect the NCAC to schedule a "super-conference" with something like 6 intra-division, 2 inter-division, and 2 non-conference games.  That adds one trip from eastern Ohio or western Penna to St. Louis and another to Chicago each season (and vice-versa).  I could be wrong (as in all things), but I can't see the NCAC presidents approving this.

But it'd be interesting, that's for sure!  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on October 13, 2005, 09:13:10 PM
In my thinking I switched OWU and Denison from your alignment mostly for competitive balance.

If you take out the inter-conference games the longest travel for NCAC teams would be central Ohio to StL or Meadville.  I would not count inter-conference games for standings and those would be used to maintain rivalries and a UAA round robin.  Wabash would lose trips to NE Ohio and W Pa, unless it chose to keep those games.  True 2 central Ohio teams would travel to Chi and StL every other year, but they lose the Meadville trip.  Those teams would go from being in the center of a conference to being on one end.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on October 14, 2005, 09:56:50 AM
You make good points, 70.  Maybe this is more plausible that I first thought.  I wish I could go back in time and reconstruct the decision process that let Wabash into the NCAC.  That was a school that is geographically remote from most of the other conference members, and doesn't fit with (supposedly) key aspects of the conference's stated "mission" (to say the least!), and yet they were admitted.  If Wabash is a fit, why not WUSTL?  Hmm.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on October 14, 2005, 10:09:29 AM
DC -  I think Wabash has many more things in common with the NCAC members than Wash U. does.

Also, don't forget that there was a fear that the NCAC could lose it's automatic bid after Case left, with Oberlin and Kenyon's football program teetering on the brink. Adding Wabash basically guaranteed they would never fall below AC status.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 14, 2005, 01:39:15 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on October 14, 2005, 09:56:50 AM
You make good points, 70.  Maybe this is more plausible that I first thought.  I wish I could go back in time and reconstruct the decision process that let Wabash into the NCAC.  That was a school that is geographically remote from most of the other conference members, and doesn't fit with (supposedly) key aspects of the conference's stated "mission" (to say the least!), and yet they were admitted.  If Wabash is a fit, why not WUSTL?  Hmm.

I don't think that the UAA schools consider themselves fits for "lesser" academic conferences like the NCAC (or the SCAC, or any other conference).    And I don't think that being in a conference that gets a Pool A is much of a motivator for them to compromise those standards. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 14, 2005, 03:25:45 PM

I just don't understand why Brandeis is in and MIT is not.  To me, that makes no sense.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on October 14, 2005, 06:09:57 PM
I don't think UAA sees itself as necessarily better than NCAC or SCAC, just different.  As has been said they are research universities where the undergraduate schools are only part of the campus.

Tufts, MIT, and Johns Hopkins are the only others that I could see as akin to the UAA schools.  I don't know why MIT isn't there.

I don't know which came first, CWRU's decision to leave or Wabash's entry.  I know there would have still been 8 teams without Wabash.  Since CWRU continued to play round robin in hoops after UAA was formed, it suggests a commitment to staying in the NCAC, unless they had to play 7 games to stay in for football.

Wabash is separated from the center of the conference geographically and one of NCAC's missions, gender equality, doesn't come up there.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on October 14, 2005, 07:25:15 PM
CWRU pulled out - then Wabash and Hiram were escorted in. Wabash had to wait a year before joining and two for football because of the scheduling issues.

Now while a NCAC / UAA 'conglomerate' may not be workable, could you see other conferences that are in "B" try to do this? Personally, I'd like to get rid of "B" all together.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on October 14, 2005, 08:59:49 PM
My research confirms your timeline.

How would you do away with Pool B:

Combine B and C?

Take the best 32 regardless?

The top 8 in 4 regions?

The top 4 in 8 regions (ala hoops)?

We all have too much time on our hands if we're talking this during the season.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on October 15, 2005, 07:23:58 PM
That depends on what you mean by "the season!"  For some of us, "the season" begins in November.   ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on October 15, 2005, 08:16:53 PM
Oh, DC - just because we smacked you around this afternoon doesn't mean there's not room for you on the NCAC football board!  ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jmccloskey on October 16, 2005, 02:12:08 AM
Well, we have five conferences that don't qualify for Pool A at present.

The Atlantic Central Football Conference is a single sport conference and therefore will never be eligible for an automatic qualifer (at least under current NCAA rules).  Any single sport conference that had an automatic qualifer as of 1998 could keep it as long as they continued to meet the eligibility standards, but no single sport conferences formed after that point can qualify.

The New England Small College Athletic Conference is a mystery to me.  I can only assume they don't participate in the NCAA football tournament, because they meet all the qualifications for an automatic bid, but don't have one.

The Northwest Conference has six members, but Lewis & Clark cancelled it's conference schedule and therefore isn't eligible for the conference title this year.  That puts them two teams short of being eligible.  The current requirement is for seven conference members that have been eligible for the Conference title AND the NCAA tournament for two years BEFORE you get an automatic qualifer.  So the earliest the NWC could go Pool A is the 2008 season.

The Presidents' Athletic Conference is on it's way to Pool A.  They have the required seven members and four core members (sponsoring more than one conference sport).  Thomas More is member #7 and is in it's first year of eligibility for the conference title.  The PAC goes Pool A in the 2007 season.

The University Athletic Association is furthest away, with only four members.  They DO have their four core members already, and could have three members join just for football to qualify for Pool A.  Pool A no earlier than the 2008 season.

So it looks like you have four Pool B Conferences.  One WILL move to Pool A, one is barred from Pool A, and the other two could move to Pool A if they can bring in more football schools.  Then, of course, you have your 18 independents that also make up Pool B, four of which have winning records at present.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 16, 2005, 03:28:11 AM
Jeff,

Welcome back to the forum. Always glad to see one of the Web's other D-III pioneers around. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2005, 07:10:42 AM
Jeff, I guess this is "Hello, pleased to meet you!" :)

One other group that pulls out of Pool B will be the members of the Upper Midwest Athletic Conference (when all football playing members finish provisional staus) plus their affiliates who happen to be in the SLAIC or NIIC/LMC for other sports.

My assessment of the UAA 4 is that the next 10 seasons (Wow! That is an epoch in NCAA time.) will contribute 40 teams to the Pool B numerator and possibly only receive 2-3 Pool B bids.

I appreciate everyone's insights and perspectives on the "Mission and Vision" of the respective conferences that we discussed.  I frequently wonder what really is happening in those conferences.  You have helped me considerably. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on October 16, 2005, 09:40:04 AM
Ralph,

Bear in mind that the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the subject conferences or their member institutions.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 16, 2005, 12:41:48 PM
CWRU70,  But until we are surprised by a remarkably different course for the football/athletic programs, I think most readers can believe that a respected poster's opinion roughly reflects the nature of the issue.

Thanks to each of you for the contributions!  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jmccloskey on October 16, 2005, 11:27:09 PM
Thanks Pat, glad to be back!

I didn't include the Upper Midwest Athletic Conference because it's not included in the conference standings on d3football.com.  I was simply going down the conference list there and comparing it to the list of Pool A conferences.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 17, 2005, 10:43:41 AM
Quote from: jmccloskey on October 16, 2005, 02:12:08 AM
The New England Small College Athletic Conference is a mystery to me.  I can only assume they don't participate in the NCAA football tournament, because they meet all the qualifications for an automatic bid, but don't have one.

For whatever reason, the NESCAC bars its members from playing football games outside of conference play, including NCAA playoff competition.  Nobody has ever figured out why they only do this in football, as they are certainly competitive on a national level in most other sports (e.g. Williams, the nine-time defending Directors' Cup champion).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 17, 2005, 10:52:01 AM

They don't do it because football playoffs interfere with finals, or at least that's the only reason I've ever heard.  It makes sense, in a way.  Basketball practically takes the month of December off and is done by finals in the spring, so no conflict there.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on October 17, 2005, 11:17:14 AM
Ron: I have a theory for NESCAC's special treatment of football. which I have posted on this board. Perhaps I will repeat it sometime.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 'gro on October 18, 2005, 11:28:51 AM
Quote from: frank uible on October 17, 2005, 11:17:14 AM
Ron: I have a theory for NESCAC's special treatment of football. which I have posted on this board. Perhaps I will repeat it sometime.

Repeat it frank, I'd like to see it.

I think the NESCAC, at the very least, should keep their current format of no conference games, but send the champ to the NCAAs. That way, only one team has to "struggle" with the thought of another 3-4 weeks of football. I think a conference with the caliber of schools the NESCAC touts can find a way to balance academics and football and still play in the NCAAs.

This would actually help out the east region, seeing the williams has had some strong teams in the past, and people want to see if trinity (CT) is for real.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on October 18, 2005, 01:37:13 PM
EngiNegro: In due course - I don't cast pearls every day.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on October 20, 2005, 12:17:29 PM
Quote from: frank uible on October 18, 2005, 01:37:13 PM
EngiNegro: In due course - I don't cast pearls every day.

What?  What?  You "don't cast pearls (before swine) every day?"

Oh, my God,  'gro!  There ain't no pearls! (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/93/93rbench.phtml) This guy's referring to us! Oh, I can't stand it! Oh, my God! I want a piece of this guy! Oh, God, please, God, I gotta give this guy a beatin'!

How much ya bench, Frank?   :D 

I miss Chris Farley.  Thanks for the excuse to remind myself of a SNL classic--do yourself a favor and follow the link under "There ain't no pearls! (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/93/93rbench.phtml)"
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 24, 2005, 09:44:07 AM

The front page has the story about the M-Morris basketball player who was killed after the football game when the goalposts came down.

If there was ever a story that crosses between the two boards, this may be it.

Any thoughts?  I know there was a big "goalpost" debate among the D1 football schools a few years back, which led to many of them getting those "safe goalposts" or whatever they are called.

I'm not too up on what they are and how prohibitive the costs are.  Is this something feasable for a d3 school?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on October 28, 2005, 10:36:20 PM
I think that they are about $3000 each.  That should not be beyond the cost of most schools offering a football program.  The NCAA mandates all kinds of silliness, so it is time that they did something for once that could be helpful.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on November 01, 2005, 01:27:31 PM
Will the realignment in 2007 (Juniata to the Centennial etc.) cause any kind of region shift?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 02:14:47 AM
While this isn't exactly the angle Ralph was playing when he started this board,  I think this discussion I had with K-Mack is worth sharing:

Quote from: hscoach on November 02, 2005, 06:30:15 PM
If team A has to play 4 very tough and physical teams to get to the Stagg, and team B gets to play Little Sisters of the Poor each week, which team do you think might be in better physical condition to win the Stagg? 

I don't see a clear cut advantage one way or the other.  Your implication is that the team with tough competition will be in worse physical condition, but I think that the untested team will be in worse competitive condition.  It has been correctly said (and misunderstood) on many boards here that a team plays to the level of its competition.  If a team's season long competition is doormats, that team will not be able to perform at as high a level as it could, if it had played tougher competition.

Although it's not directly on point re: Pool C bids, you're raising a great point about college football that I've mentioned several times on other boards.  The point is this: it is impossible to maintain for an extended period of time the level of physical conditioning necessary to play football consistently well and safely.  My Division III coach felt that the point of diminishing returns was reached at around nine weeks, and I've seen no reason to believe otherwise.

This is Division III football.  Academics come before athletics.  I personally wish that more people in positions of authority would reflect carefully on the appropriateness of promoting a five week tournament on top of a ten game regular season.  It's exciting, it's fun, but is it safe, and is it consistent with the principles of Division III?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 09:48:08 AM
Academics do come before athletics, of course.

However, I would hate to deny student athletes the right to compete for a championship. It has been shown that top-notch academic schools can compete and win championships in Division III.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on November 03, 2005, 10:27:23 AM

You know a D3 BCS system would just solve all of this confusion.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 10:50:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 09:48:08 AM
Academics do come before athletics, of course.

However, I would hate to deny student athletes the right to compete for a championship. It has been shown that top-notch academic schools can compete and win championships in Division III.

The right to compete for a championship?  Whence comes this right?

The best definition I've ever heard of a right is "a privilege protected by a remedy."  Privilege must be granted, presumably by some authority.  Competing in a championship is no more a right than attending Williams College is a right.

If you grant competing in a championship the status of a right, then doesn't that mean you are placing it ahead of academics?  Even if you're granted the privilege of attending Williams, you don't have a right to a degree, you don't even have a right to a passing grade (although I bet Dr. Ypsi has encountered students who feel otherwise).  A right to compete in a national championship would then be placing a higher priority on athletics.

Of course students and teams from top notch academic schools can win national championships, but doesn't it require emphasizing athletics over academics--even if it's only done temporarily--for those national champion students?

The ultimate question I'm asking is what is the marginal improvement in education, the stated priority of Division III?  How is a Williams College education more well-rounded by virtue of a team winning a national championship, vs. that same team going undefeated in three straight seasons of 8 games each against other top notch academic schools?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 03, 2005, 11:02:13 AM
redswarm81:

Perhaps smedindy meant "opportunity" rather than right ....

[BTW as a retired-but-still-teaching college faculty member, I'm more than passingly familiar with a student's "right" to a good grade -- wanna see my scars?  :(]
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 11:27:14 AM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on November 03, 2005, 11:02:13 AM
redswarm81:

Perhaps smedindy meant "opportunity" rather than right ....

Of course he did, but I don't think that changes the argument.

Quote from: Warren Thompson on November 03, 2005, 11:02:13 AM
[BTW as a retired-but-still-teaching college faculty member, I'm more than passingly familiar with a student's "right" to a good grade -- wanna see my scars?  :(]

I don't doubt you and no thanks, I get queasy at the sight of mortal wounds.   :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 03, 2005, 11:35:02 AM
... and some of the really, really mortal wounds were inflicted by a student's parents, the sort who believe their offspring couldn't possible deserve a C-. :'(
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 12:08:49 PM
I meant opportunity. And I do feel that competing in a sport does offer one to learn some valuable life lessons. Extra-cirriculars should be encouraged, competition should be valued. Athletics, debate, jazz band, theater, College Bowl - they are all part of a rich, well-rounded experience.

Many of our most successful alums were also athletes, and what they did was learn to balance and prioritize one's life.  Many of our athletes also participate in other extra-cirriculars in the off season. It is not unusual to see a football player or two treading the boards, or singing in the glee club, or engaging in other activities.

Having the opportunity to test your mettle against the best of the nation is a valuable experience.

While they don't have the "name cache" of some schools in the NESCAC - the schools in the NCAC and SCAC, among others, hold their own academically with them. And they compete on the national stage. Look at Kenyon in swimming, Trinity in football, Wooster in hoops.

There are national competitions of all sorts for students in college - would you discourage them as well? Life lessons are learned in various ways.



Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 01:09:18 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 12:08:49 PM
I meant opportunity. And I do feel that competing in a sport does offer one to learn some valuable life lessons. Extra-cirriculars should be encouraged, competition should be valued. Athletics, debate, jazz band, theater, College Bowl - they are all part of a rich, well-rounded experience.
* * *
Having the opportunity to test your mettle against the best of the nation is a valuable experience.

There are national competitions of all sorts for students in college - would you discourage them as well? Life lessons are learned in various ways.

I understand all that Smed, but I don't think you addressed my question:

What is the marginal improvement in education, the stated priority of Division III?  How is a Williams (or Wooster or Oberlin) College education more well-rounded by virtue of a team winning a national championship, vs. that same team going undefeated in three straight seasons of 8 games each against other top notch academic schools?

I would discourage--for example, national debate championship participation, if it distracted the debate students from their higher priority academics as much as a football national championship distracts football players.

You mention that competing on a national level is a valuable experience, but you seem to be ignoring the costs.  Is it worth the costs?  What are the costs that you see?  I include in my calculation of the costs the knowledge that the administration is willing to rearrange its stated priorities, even if only temporarily, for the sake of athletic championships.   What is to prevent that administration from rearranging its priorities in favor of other non-academic pursuits?  In other words, what guarantees am I going to get for my $30,000+/year tuition, other than the right to mortally wound the Dr. Warrens of the world should they have the audacity to grade my child's below-grade work honestly?

I'm trying to sort this out, and I appreciate all input.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on November 03, 2005, 01:23:04 PM

The players go to Williams knowing full well that they won't get to compete in the post-season.  They choose to be there.  They choose to pay to be there.  I doubt any of them have their academic priorities out of whack.  If there is still a call from the athletic department to do post-season for football, maybe they should give it a try, perhaps the players know their own abilities better than the administration.

I think if Williams or Amherst or whoever is putting out the intellects that they have historically produced, these great minds should be trusted to make decent choices.

I don't think there are too many student-athletes in the NESCAC who would sacrifice academic performance for athletic success.

I'm not advocating for the post-season, but I'm saying that it should be up to the players.  If they vote or discuss it or whatever and come to the realization that most of the team can't handle finals and practice, then its settled.

Many colleges treat their students like glorified teenagers right up until graduation, when they expect them to be totally self-sufficient adults.  Perhaps part of the education is teaching them responsiblity, time management and priorities.

Neither the problem nor the solution is as simple as I made it sound, but there must be serious consideration given to the athletes themselves.  Like the court system learned, things often work out best when the kid picks which parent gets custody.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 01:33:16 PM
I don't see how schools, such as Wabash, rearrange their academic priorities so that the teams can compete for a championship.  At least in the NCAC, SCAC and the UAA, they expect the athletes to face the same rigor in the classroom as the other students.  I doubt that anyone who swims at Kenyon is excused from the hard work in the classroom that is expected of a Kenyon student.

I think the NCAC would suffer if it merely played other NCAC schools. You become insular.

Would it really hurt the NESCAC to schedule a ninth game, and make it a regional game or something? Or are they that elitist to think that no one else in that region is worthy of their presence?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on November 03, 2005, 01:52:56 PM
Even at lowly state colleges in NJ student athletes who participate in the post season are expected to make up all work and attend class.  On the NJCU mens basketball team coach Brown gets an attendance list for all of his players and other students associated with the team.  If they have unexcused absences from classes they better have a good reason and they still face a chance of being benched for at least part of the game depending on the reason.  Not only athletes miss class because of activities.  Many Music, Dance and Theatre majors at NJCU and other schools miss large amounts of class time (sometimes much more than athletes) due to upcoming or currently running performances.  They are also expected to make up all work and clear everything with all professors.  Usually a memo sent to all faculty from the department chair would handle any complaints from the professors.

If schools chose not to participate in the NCAA post-season that is their choice.  I happen to think that the championships are a valuable educational tool for the athletes and for other students and each student athlete has a vote on whether or not they play in these tournaments, it is called enrolling at the school of their choice and trying out for the team.

IF the service academies don't have a problem with NCAA post season play I don't see why NESCAC and Ivy league schools have one.  I really don't think there are any harder workers then the students at the service academies and that is including Kings Point and the Coast Guard Academy.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 02:48:52 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on November 03, 2005, 01:23:04 PM
The players go to Williams knowing full well that they won't get to compete in the post-season. They choose to be there. They choose to pay to be there.

Sigh.  I was afraid that if I used Williams as my example, some would be unable to separate my question from the issue of NESCAC policy.  I only used Williams as an example of high quality academics in a well rounded educational experience.

What is the marginal improvement in education, the stated priority of Division III?  How is a Wooster or Oberlin College education more well-rounded by virtue of a team winning a national championship, vs. that same team going undefeated in three straight seasons of 8 games each against other top notch academic schools, or that same team winning 3, 8,  and 2 games in successive seasons?

Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 01:33:16 PM
I don't see how schools, such as Wabash, rearrange their academic priorities so that the teams can compete for a championship.

You can't be serious.  Being willing to spend thousands of dollars per student over a potential five week schedule, granting students leeway to travel longer distances than usual, doesn't reflect a reordering of priority, in favor of athletics?

Let's face it--we all know that during the playoffs every single player places his athletics at a higher priority than his academics.  Every administration knows this, and therefore every administration that permits playoff participation is endorsing the massive distraction from academics that playoff participation causes.  Isn't that knowinglyl reordering the priority of academics and athletics for those students?

Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 01:33:16 PM
I think the NCAC would suffer if it merely played other NCAC schools. You become insular.

You must be addressing athletics only, and ignoring academics.

Here the NESCAC comparison is apt.  Which "insular" NESCAC school has a reputation of providing a less well rounded education than any NCAC school?

Quote from: knightstalker on November 03, 2005, 01:52:56 PM
IF the service academies don't have a problem with NCAA post season play I don't see why NESCAC and Ivy league schools have one. I really don't think there are any harder workers then the students at the service academies and that is including Kings Point and the Coast Guard Academy.

I agree with you regarding the rigor of service academies, but there is a BIG difference, one that makes your analogy flawed.  At all service academies, every student is required to participate in extracurricular activities to the same extent.  While the football team is practicing during the playoffs, the rowing team is practicing as well, even though its season is complete.  If the service academy football team doesn't qualify for playoffs, it will still hold practices after their season is complete.  Participation in playoffs by service academies is far more consistent with their academic v. athletic priorities than it is at "civilian" schools, where participation in extracurricular activities is optional.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 03, 2005, 03:06:26 PM
redswarm:

"... Dr. Warrens of the world ...."?  ???
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on November 03, 2005, 03:08:44 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 02:48:52 PM

What is the marginal improvement in education, the stated priority of Division III?

You've used this a few times now and maybe I'm missing the point, but this sentence appears flawed to me.  Is there a stated priority of "marginal improvement?"  I guess I'm looking for your basis of making this claim.  Improvement from what? and why is it marginal?

Also, you quoted me totally out of context.  If you read the rest of the post, you could have seen that I am not making a claim one way or another.  I see perfect logic in both sides of the argument.  However, I am taking umbrage at the fact that these decisions are made beyond the purview of the student-athletes themselves.

It seems dumb to quote myself, but

Quote from: Hoops Fan on November 03, 2005, 01:23:04 PM

The players go to Williams knowing full well that they won't get to compete in the post-season. They choose to be there. They choose to pay to be there. I doubt any of them have their academic priorities out of whack. If there is still a call from the athletic department to do post-season for football, maybe they should give it a try, perhaps the players know their own abilities better than the administration.

It's about the administration being willing to give some of the say on implimentation of the schools mission to the students themselves.  Quoting again,

Quote from: Hoops Fan on November 03, 2005, 01:23:04 PM

Many colleges treat their students like glorified teenagers right up until graduation, when they expect them to be totally self-sufficient adults. Perhaps part of the education is teaching them responsiblity, time management and priorities.

Neither the problem nor the solution is as simple, but there must be serious consideration given to the athletes themselves. As the court system learned, things often work out best when the kid picks which parent gets custody.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 03:54:23 PM
QuoteYou can't be serious.  Being willing to spend thousands of dollars per student over a potential five week schedule, granting students leeway to travel longer distances than usual, doesn't reflect a reordering of priority, in favor of athletics?

Well, when we allow travel for College Bowl teams that advance to the nationals, I'd say it's granting students  opportunities to pursue their extra cirriculars.  Every day I see dean's excuse emails for this class or this activity to miss some of the day for travel.

Playoff time is also crunch time in the classroom, and I can tell you this - not one professor is letting any of the athletes work slide. They expect the same work no matter what.

Why is it superior that the NESCAC footballers only play the NESCAC? It is QUITE insular - it's a haughty sense that they are superior to the rest of D-3, and I take umbrage regarding that attitude.

I think you are selling student-athletes way,way short. You should meet some of them around here. They are quite serious about their studies and about their sports, and about their other activities. They compete on the field and in the classroom.


Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 03:56:38 PM
You are missing the point, I must not be explaining it well enough.

The reason I am asking about marginal improvement is to address specifically the difference between healthy participation in extracurricular activity (e.g., a 9 game football season), and participation in national playoffs.

Participation in a 9 game football season is a tremendous enhancement to an undergraduate education.  So in other words, the value of that enhancement is the difference between an education plus a 9 game regular season and an education without a 9 game regular season.

I don't see a five week playoff offering much improvement on the enhancement already provided by the regular season.

In fact, I see tremendous costs associated with the additional high stakes games, and very few if any benefits that accrue to the education.  The costs of participating in the playoffs are enormous in every measure--money, time, students' attention, all of which are limited resources.  What does the student athlete learn in the playoffs that he didn't learn in the regular season?

If you do  understand my point, you'll understand why the issue of students choosing to attend Williams knowing that playoffs are not an option is irrelevant.  The more relevant choice is the choice to play football or not to play football.  Then you'll also understand why I excised certain irrelevant text when I quoted you.

My point is that Williams students receive as well rounded an education as any Linfield student could possibly receive, yet the Williams students will never participate in a national football championship playoff.  The DIII national championship offers no benefit academically, and yet Division III claims to emphasize academics over athletics.

If you understand my point, you'll also understand that the lessons in "responsiblity, time management and priorities" are taught just as effectively without any participation in a national championship playoff system.  Choosing to play football forces a student to learn those lessons.

I enjoy the heck out of the Division III playoffs.  I'm just trying to find out if anyone else recognizes the fact that it's so clearly inconsistent with Division III's lofty goals?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 03, 2005, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 03:56:38 PM

I'm just trying to find out if anyone else recognizes the fact that it's so clearly inconsistent with Division III's lofty goals?

That might be one of D3's happy little inconsistencies, and certainly not as blatant as what D1 presidents utter when they assay to justify professional athetics at their venues.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 04:07:41 PM
Then let's eliminate all championships. But that also eliminates the essence of varsity athletics.

You strive to be the best at everything. You learn by the struggle and achieving whatever goal you have set for yourself and for your team.

The players at Hiram suit up, knowing that they probably will not have a winning record, much less make the playoffs. But they suit up and compete. At Wabash, the goal is to beat DePauw and make the playoffs. That's why they compete. At Linfield, the goal is to win the title. You learn from the struggle to achieve your goal, and that is a valuable lesson.

The costs you assert - actually I think having a team in the playoffs FOCUS the attention of the students on a positive activity that helps unify the campus.

And the classroom cost I mentioned below. It's just another week for a student athlete. He must do the work anyway.

How can a football playoff be any worse than the basketball playoffs, or field hockey, or swimming? At least in football, the distractions, if any, are limited to one semester. Many sports stretch over the fall and spring semesters.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 03, 2005, 04:12:10 PM
What might be a not-so-happy, not-so-little inconsistency in D3 is the reality that a a goodly number of institutions, through clever manipulation of financial aid, are able to offer what are de facto athletic scholarships.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 04:26:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 03:54:23 PM
Quote from: redswarm81You can't be serious. Being willing to spend thousands of dollars per student over a potential five week schedule, granting students leeway to travel longer distances than usual, doesn't reflect a reordering of priority, in favor of athletics?

Well, when we allow travel for College Bowl teams that advance to the nationals, I'd say it's granting students opportunities to pursue their extra cirriculars. Every day I see dean's excuse emails for this class or this activity to miss some of the day for travel.

I can't understand why it's so hard to get through to some of you, especially when you all know how I love you so much.  :-*

Smed, does it make any difference to you that College Bowl is an academic pursuit?  At least it's more directly related to academics than football.

Have I been misspelling extracurricular?

Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 03:54:23 PMPlayoff time is also crunch time in the classroom, and I can tell you this - not one professor is letting any of the athletes work slide. They expect the same work no matter what.

Understood.  So how then does the school justify endorsing such a tremendous distraction from academics, especially during crunch time?  As I explained to Hoops, I see no evidence that playoffs enhance the academics over and above the enhancement provided by the regular season.  Playoff participation is offered solely for the athletics, not the academic enhancement provided by athletics.

Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 03:54:23 PMWhy is it superior that the NESCAC footballers only play the NESCAC?  It is QUITE insular - it's a haughty sense that they are superior to the rest of D-3, and I take umbrage regarding that attitude.

Fine.  Don't hire graduates from NESCAC schools, but that sort of bigotry is likely to prove more harmful to you than the bigotry you accuse NESCAC schools of committing.  The NESCAC's "insular" reputation does not extend beyond their athletics.  Rather, the opposite is true--they have top national academic reputations.  Just ask US News and World Distort (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/libartco/tier1/t1libartco_brief.php).

Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 03:54:23 PMI think you are selling student-athletes way,way short. You should meet some of them around here. They are quite serious about their studies and about their sports, and about their other activities. They compete on the field and in the classroom.

This comment I don't understand at all.  I'm not selling student-athletes short, I'm encouraging every student who is able to play Division III college football.  Any education will be enhanced by participation in athletics, particularly in team sports.

All of the arguments that I've heard apply well to the individual choice that a student makes to play football or not.  The arguments also apply well to the choice that a school makes to offer football or not.

However, I don't see how these arguments apply to the choice between permitting participation in a national playoff system or not, especially when the choice is to be made by a school that claims to emphasize academics over athletics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 04:40:45 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on November 03, 2005, 04:06:04 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 03:56:38 PM

I'm just trying to find out if anyone else recognizes the fact that it's so clearly inconsistent with Division III's lofty goals?
That might be one of D3's happy little inconsistencies, and certainly not as blatant as what D1 presidents utter when they assay to justify professional athetics at their venues.

Warren, you are a total stud.  PatGuru and K-Mack hinted at this conclusion a couple of seasons ago when they were introducing the playoff teams, but you're the first person besides me to say it in so many words.

If that's what it is, I can live with it.  But you and I both recognize that we are perched on a slippery slope, down which D-1 has slid farther than I would have guessed it is possible to descend.  We must remain vigilant to ensure that Division III doesn't follow the path of Division 1.

My pick for the low point of D-1 hypocrisy was when University of Colorado President Betsy Hoffman, in an effort to protect the football program from liability in a sexual harassment lawsuit (and also from NCAA sanctions and Title IX violations), testified under oath that the "c-word" is a term of endearment. (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3419466/detail.html)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 03, 2005, 04:50:11 PM
redswarm:

First, I'm "Dr. Warren" and now I'm a "total stud"? Jeez, I'm positively giddy, I tell ya ....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 04:58:26 PM
The NESCAC have fine repuations. By insular I mean that they think too highly of themselves and their kind, and that's inferred when they play in their own little world in football. Other fine liberal arts colleges educate their students as well or even better than they do, and they seem to do just fine by allowing playoff participation.

You have concerns regarding the extra time it takes to compete the playoffs. I'm saying that the student athlete can and will find the extra time without damaging his studies. I contend that Williams and Amherst will find that if they allow playoff participation, it will not adversely affect their student athletes.

The Ivies do the same thing, yet they allow for their teams to compete in the NCAA basketball tournament, which takes up more of a student athletes time than football.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 05:06:09 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 04:07:41 PM
Then let's eliminate all championships. But that also eliminates the essence of varsity athletics.

Again, you can't be serious.  In fact, your argument refutes your conclusion, it doesn't support it:

Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 04:07:41 PMYou strive to be the best at everything. You learn by the struggle and achieving whatever goal you have set for yourself and for your team.

The players at Hiram suit up, knowing that they probably will not have a winning record, much less make the playoffs. But they suit up and compete.  At Wabash, the goal is to beat DePauw and make the playoffs. That's why they compete. At Linfield, the goal is to win the title. You learn from the struggle to achieve your goal, and that is a valuable lesson.

Again Smed, I think your argument is dead on when a student is considering whether to play football or not, and it's dead on when a school is considering whether to offer football or not.  Those Hiram players receive the full benefit of varsity athletics.  In fact, those Hiram students are the essence of varsity athletics.  But I don't see what academic enhancement is offered to Linfield students, that the Hiram students didn't already receive.  An athletic thrill sure, but I see no benefit accruing to the well rounded education.

Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 04:07:41 PM
The costs you assert - actually I think having a team in the playoffs FOCUS the attention of the students on a positive activity that helps unify the campus.
Again,  regular season games against quality rivals accomplish just as much.  Williams v. Amherst, RPI v. Union, Ithaca v. Cortland St., Johnnies v. Tommies, . . .

Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 04:07:41 PMAnd the classroom cost I mentioned below. It's just another week for a student athlete. He must do the work anyway.

Then why not play 12 game regular seasons, like they do in D-1?  Where do you draw the line, and why do you draw it where you choose to draw it?

Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 04:07:41 PMHow can a football playoff be any worse than the basketball playoffs, or field hockey, or swimming? At least in football, the distractions, if any, are limited to one semester. Many sports stretch over the fall and spring semesters.

It's difficult to answer the question narrowly, because the biggest danger of football playoffs is the fact that once you extend a season to 15 games, you're seriously courting injury and reduced quality of play.  As I've said many times on several boards, it is impossible for an extended period of time to maintain the degree of fitness necessary to play football consistently well and safely.  Physical conditioning necessarily suffers during the season.

Second, since the football season is only one semester, the playoffs are guaranteed to conflict with exams, and at many schools an inordinately high emphasis is placed on exams.  For this reason, the winter sports might be the least harmful, since their regular season can be suspended and scheduled to accommodate exams.

Third, the sheer size and associated cost of a football program makes it impossible to compare with any other athletic program.  The amount of money that is necessary to operate a football program in Division III is in most cases equal to the athletic budget for all other sports combined.  Expanding that expense to include a five week playoff can't be compared with sending a half dozen qualifiers to the national championship swimming and diving meet.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on November 03, 2005, 04:12:10 PM
What might be a not-so-happy, not-so-little inconsistency in D3 is the reality that a a goodly number of institutions, through clever manipulation of financial aid, are able to offer what are de facto athletic scholarships.

:o Ever vigilant, Dr. Studly.  Ever vigilant we must remain.   :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 05:21:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 04:58:26 PM
You have concerns regarding the extra time it takes to compete the playoffs. I'm saying that the student athlete can and will find the extra time without damaging his studies. I contend that Williams and Amherst will find that if they allow playoff participation, it will not adversely affect their student athletes.

On the other hand, I commend Williams and Amherst for sticking to their guns on the emphasis of academics over athletics, by not permitting the possibility of football players' studies being affected negatively by the monstrous(ly entertaining) distraction of national playoffs.

I'd be right there with you Smed, if Williams and Amherst and all of Division III didn't state that the reason they're different is that they emphasize academics over athletics.

Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 04:58:26 PM
The Ivies do the same thing, yet they allow for their teams to compete in the NCAA basketball tournament, which takes up more of a student athletes time than football.

The dirty little not-so-secret is that the NESCAC does the same thing.  In fact, I think that football is the only sport in which they do not participate in the national championships.  (In their defense, the basketball tournament affects a dozen students, the football tournament affects 60.)

In fact, Williams College has a bunch of recent national championships in other sports, which stands to reason considering their campus is swollen with overachieving sons and daughters of privilege.   :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 05:25:53 PM
Uh, that first line regarding eliminating all championships was sarcastic. I'm surprised that you didn't pick up on that.

The Wabash / DePauw game does galvanize the Wabash community. It does every year. But this year, and in 2002, there is an ever greater focus right now because of the looming playoff run.

A 10-game regular season is fine. Very few teams will advance to the playoffs far enough to seriously conflict with exams - but many basketball tournaments are scheduled near exam time as well.

Also, must EVERY College experience be solely and completely related to its stated academic mission? There are many serendipitous teaching and learning opportunities that come from intramural athletics, campus forums, dinners, and other social events. Sometimes you learn more OUT of the classroom than in the classroom.

And I don't think the sky is falling on D-3. In fact, read this study: http://www.wabash.edu/cila/home.cfm?news_id=1358

And about cost, once a team makes the playoffs, the only real additional cost is travel, the others are already fixed for the most part, and correct me if I'm wrong, but does not the NCAA pay for travel costs for so many of a team's traveling party? That's why they don't fly unless they have to.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 05:26:43 PM
You can emphasize academics and still contend for a national title. I don't see why those have cross purposes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on November 03, 2005, 05:51:55 PM

Although I find it absolutely amazing how many posts have gone by since my last, I have to say again that Red you've missed my point.

You react to my statements as if I were against you.  I agree, there is quite a bit of logic in only playing nine games.  I really don't have an opinion one way or another on the topic itself.  I am more concerned about the way these decisions are made on the campuses.  They should not be made solely by administration or faculty or even the conference; the players deserve a say in this.  We are insulting them by assuming they will always choose play-offs at the sacrifice of their academics.

If we are really in the business of training people to be responsible members of society who can think and reason and run their own live, then we must allow them more choice in the matters that affect them.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 03, 2005, 06:30:09 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on November 03, 2005, 05:51:55 PM
If we are really in the business of training people to be responsible members of society who can think and reason and run their own live, then we must allow them more choice in the matters that affect them.

We do allow them the choice.  They can choose to play or not.

The argument that you and others are making regarding the choices that students should be allowed to make and the lessons that they learn outside the classroom all apply perfectly well to regular season competition.  They fail, however, when you try and apply them to national playoffs in addition to regular season competition.

Regular season athletic competition is by definition a distraction from academics.  However, we both agree that it offers benefits in excess of the costs of that distraction.

However, I am not as willing as you are to permit students to choose to accept such an overwhelming additional distraction from academics as national playoffs cause, especially if I'm a school administrator who has publicly stated that my school values academics above athletics.

As Smed and I agreed, those Hiram kids are getting as much out of intercollegiate athletics as the Linfield kids are.  You agree with that too, don't you Hoops?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 06:46:42 PM
Again, how is allowing competing for a championship violating the tenet that academics come first? I fail, again, to see any logic or reasoning behind it since fine academic schools who do not put up with any shennanigans also compete in the playoffs. Indeed, even vaunted institutions as Washington U. or the U. of Chicago would allow its student athletes a chance to compete for a title if they were chosen to be in the playoffs.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 03, 2005, 06:56:46 PM
Something that is implicit in this discussion but that I think should be made explicit: why is football UNIQUELY bad for post-season competition?

I know the discussion is not specifically about Williams, but they have been a recurring example.  Since they have won the d3 all-sports trophy (I'm blanking on the official name!) seemingly every year for approximately forever, they obviously have a LOT of athletes spending a LOT of extra time in the post-season.  While football may involve more student-athletes (ONLY in d3 can I type that phrase without gagging!) than any other specific sport, ALL the sports Williams (or anyone else) participates in collectively dwarf football.  So, WHY is postseason in football different?

As a college instructor, I'll grant PARTIAL credence to time of the semester when the disruption occurs, but ONLY partial.  Likewise, injury and length of season holds SOME credence, but compared to, say, lacrosse?!  Sum total, I just don't understand why football is being singled out (in the NESCAC and in this discussion).  MOST of the arguments apply to no one or apply to all sports.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 01:14:57 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 03, 2005, 06:56:46 PM
why is football UNIQUELY bad for post-season competition?

Williams . . . obviously have a LOT of athletes spending a LOT of extra time in the post-season.  While football may involve more student-athletes (ONLY in d3 can I type that phrase without gagging!) than any other specific sport, ALL the sports Williams (or anyone else) participates in collectively dwarf football.  So, WHY is postseason in football different?

I just don't understand why football is being singled out (in the NESCAC and in this discussion).  MOST of the arguments apply to no one or apply to all sports.
Let's face it Doc, the biggest reason for the focus of the discussion is that this is d3football.com.

I'm not confident that your use of the word "dwarf" is appropriate, though.  Even if as many athletes compete nationally in other sports as the number that plays football (I doubt it's more), no sport requires nearly as big an investment in equipment, facilities and material as football.

You're right that the arguments apply to most other sports, but the costs are surely higher in football.

My concern remains the fact that the motivation to compete in playoffs is only to improve the athletic experience, not to enhance the education.  Division III--academics over athletics, but during playoff season we look the other way. :-X
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 01:40:55 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 06:46:42 PM
Again, how is allowing competing for a championship violating the tenet that academics come first?

I'll give up after this, Smed.  You and I agree that the Hiram kids get a great augmentation to their education by playing .500 seasons.

I think that you and I also agree that the increase in that augmentation would be minimal if the Hiram kids were to play several rounds in the playoffs.  Good for them for making the playoffs, but it's not making their well rounded education more well rounded.

However, as you mentioned, the Wabash-Depauw game is a bigger deal this year because of playoff possibilities.  Does the bigger deal mean that the student athletes are getting a better education? Of course not--it's a bigger deal because the Depauw game is higher stakes athletics.

Read those last two sentences carefully Smed.  Once the stakes go beyond the regular season, the games become a bigger deal because of the athletics, with no parallel increase in academics.  Playoffs mean that athletics are ahead of academics.

This means that for a school to endorse participation in playoffs, it must do so with the knowledge that for the playoffs, it is willing to use a different definition of "academics over athletics."  In fact, the definition that they must use sure looks to me (and logically also to those who get excited about playoff implications in the Depauw game) like "athletics over academics." 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 08:34:10 AM
It would be athletics over academics if the student athletes were not students. Otherwise, I don't see your point at all in all of this. The fact that these young men will battle through classes and tests and papers and readings for five days, then play on Saturday, then study on Sunday for Monday's classes, makes it unique and special.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 08:45:42 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 08:34:10 AM
It would be athletics over academics if the student athletes were not students. Otherwise, I don't see your point at all in all of this. The fact that these young men will battle through classes and tests and papers and readings for five days, then play on Saturday, then study on Sunday for Monday's classes, makes it unique and special.

By that logic, it would still be academics over athletics if they were awarded athletic scholarships,  because "these young men will battle through classes and tests and papers and readings for five days, then play on Saturday, then study on Sunday for Monday's classes."

It would still be academics over athletics if they played a 14 game regular season and had a 64 team tournament lasting 6 additional weeks, because "these young men will battle through classes and tests and papers and readings for five days, then play on Saturday, then study on Sunday for Monday's classes."

It would still be academics over athletics if they practiced during all of July (like some crazed ONU on steroids), because "these young men will battle through classes and tests and papers and readings for five days, then play on Saturday, then study on Sunday for Monday's classes."

I see your point, Smed.  The fact that they are students means that academics always come first.  It makes perfect sense.  How unique.  How special.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 11:06:28 AM
I'm not sure I want to wade into this, especially since I'm not entirely certain where I stand on the concept of post-season tournaments.

But I would like to say that I think there is a difference between a playoff football game (or a Monon Bell game, for that matter) and the ordinary week 6 (or whatever) game.  The benefit that the student-athletes get from participating in intercollegiate athletics is in intangible character quantities such as leadership, ability to overcome obstacles, teamwork, and crisis management.  These lessons are learned much more effectively in a high-pressure playoff game or rivalry game than they are in the average Hiram blowout.  To that extent, I believe that the Wabash football player gets a better, more valuable experience than does a Hiram player, and the possibility of playoff games (not a practical possibility for a Terrier) enhances that experience. 

I'm not saying that this justifies an extension of the season merely to crown a national champion.  (I'm not saying it doesn't, either.)  I just think that there are positives associated with playoff football that have to be weighed against the many negatives, such as disruption with classroom activities, higher costs, and increased likelihood of injury.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 11:32:37 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 11:06:28 AM
I believe that the Wabash football player gets a better, more valuable experience than does a Hiram player, and the possibility of playoff games (not a practical possibility for a Terrier) enhances that experience. 

It's an attractive argument David, but if it were extended logically, then you might be forced to argue that the Rowan student-athlete gets a better, more valuable experience than the Williams student-athlete.  I just don't see any way to make that idea work.

Although this is not a NESCAC-only issue, I do think that the NESCAC does it right.  You'll not find a better rivalry in college sports than Colby/Bates/Bowdoin for instance, and the Colby football player surely gets an enhancement to his football experience by the higher stakes atmosphere of those rivalry games.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 11:49:00 AM
Really? Funny, I never heard that those were hot-bed rivalries and I've been following this stuff for years.  Though I guess when the attendance jumps from 400 to 2,434 it is a rivalry.

That being said, how would a trip to the playoffs DETRACT from a Trinity or Williams players experience?

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on November 04, 2005, 12:30:46 PM
Now you morons listen closely - I'm only going to say these things once. In DIII  athletics is or ought to be about benefiting the participating kids first and foremost. The athletic experience can be and, if implemented effectively, is a significant part of the educational experience for those kids. Certain young people are very much excited by athletically testing themselves against other young people. This positive excitement can be heightened by competing against others whom one does not know well (or at all)  and whom one perceives as excelling in the athletics in question. It is even more enriching for the participating kids when they perceive that they are being  tested more greatly than they have been previously - for instance, in playoff competition against opposition of an extremely high quality on a " winner- take- all" basis. As for Trinity, Williams, NESCAC and their posture toward football playoffs - they either don't have the brains they were born with or have a hidden, anti-student political agenda.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 01:08:20 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 11:49:00 AM
how would a trip to the playoffs DETRACT from a Trinity or Williams players experience?

Is "enhancing players' experience" a stated goal of Division III?

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't enhance the Trinity or Williams players' experiences.  It would obviously be a great athletic experience, maybe even greater than Trinity stopping Williams' nations-best winning streak, or Williams doing the same to Trinity.

What I am arguing is that it requires Kelo v. New London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London)-like intellectual contortions to claim that playoff participation is consistent with the stated "academics before athletics" goal of Division III.

As far as that goes, college instructors have posted on Post Patterns that the playoffs occur during high academic stakes crunch time.  I think a "D" on a final exam detracts from a student's overall educational experience,  even if it's balanced by an enhanced athletic experience.

I enjoy the Division III playoffs, even though I recognize that they are inconsistent with the Division III goal of keeping academics before athletics.  I also like the occasional half pound bar of Hershey's chocolate, despite my personal goal of maintaining a healthy diet.

It's human to have internal contradictions, I just don't think it's healthy to deny that such contradictions exist.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 01:10:46 PM
Well, then, I would expect that scads of Wabash players would have big time academic issues because of their playoff run in '02 then. And that Linfield, St. John's, Trinity, and Mt. Union would never graduate any player in four years.

And I guess you never have gotten a hint that just because you go to the playoffs doesn't mean academics come first. Players miss some practice for labs, still, even in the playoff time.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: frank uible on November 04, 2005, 12:30:46 PM
Now you morons listen closely - I'm only going to say these things once.

That's good.  Please don't say such things twice.  ::)

Don't engage in dialogue--in fact you can't, because it's less than 60 days before an election, and Messrs. McCain and Feingold are watching.  :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 01:16:07 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 11:32:37 AMIt's an attractive argument David, but if it were extended logically, then you might be forced to argue that the Rowan student-athlete gets a better, more valuable experience than the Williams student-athlete.  I just don't see any way to make that idea work.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but it sure sounds like academic snobbery, a game I refuse to play.  I am only talking about the experience gained through intercollegiate athletics, and yes, I think it is plausible (not necessary, just plausible) that the Rowan footballer gets a better experience than his Williams counterpart in this regard.

Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 11:32:37 AMYou'll not find a better rivalry in college sports than Colby/Bates/Bowdoin for instance, and the Colby football player surely gets an enhancement to his football experience by the higher stakes atmosphere of those rivalry games.

I believe that is my point exactly.  So we agree.  But, as my friend smedindy points out, that does not mean that a playoff game necessarily detracts from the experience.  Looked at in isolation (that is, ignoring any other impacts such as time away from studying, etc.), if it is good for the Colby footballer to play Bates, it is also good for that footballer to play in a playoff game.

Quote from: frank uible on November 04, 2005, 12:30:46 PMNow you morons listen closely [...]
This is entirely uncalled for.  I smite thee.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 01:21:27 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 01:10:46 PM
Well, then, I would expect that scads of Wabash players would have big time academic issues because of their playoff run in '02 then. And that Linfield, St. John's, Trinity, and Mt. Union would never graduate any player in four years.

And I guess you never have gotten a hint that just because you go to the playoffs doesn't mean academics come first. Players miss some practice for labs, still, even in the playoff time.

As you mentioned, the Wabash-Depauw game is a bigger deal this year because of playoff possibilities.  Does the bigger deal mean that the student athletes are getting a better education? Of course not--it's a bigger deal because the Depauw game is higher stakes athletics.

Read those last two sentences carefully Smed.  Once the stakes go beyond the regular season, the games become a bigger deal because of the athletics, with no parallel increase in academics.  Playoffs mean that athletics are ahead of academics.


I give up Smed.  You're convinced that as long as the athletes are students,  academics have a higher priority than athletics.  You're incapable of recognizing that playoff participation places a tremendous additional burden on athletes' academic pressures, a burden that wouldn't exist if the athletes weren't participating in the playoffs.  I can't break through your intellectual defenses.

I wish you well.  Don't lose any sleep over your karma antics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 01:26:00 PM
Redswarm, you keep talking about the academic experience and the "football" experence as if these are mutually exclusive, or at least at odds with one another.  My point is that they are complimentary, to a certain degree.  I would not want my son to spend every waking hour in class, lab, or library.  Such a student would not be well-rounded and ready to function as a valuable member of society upon graduation.  I believe extracurricular activities, including intercollegiate sports, contribute to the overall education and maturation of the student.

So when I talk about the "valuable experience" gained through football, I'm talking about those things that build character, an important function of any college, and one that I consider part of the "academic experience."

The question here is one of balance:  at what point do you say "enough is enough?"  This conversation could have gone in the opposite direction just as easily:  taking as granted that playing intercollegiate football has value, does that value outweigh the costs?  Arguments that football should be abolished from colleges (in favor of less expensive sports like soccer, or less physically taxing sports like baseball) are fairly easy to make.  It depends on where you think the balance point is.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 01:29:52 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 01:16:07 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 11:32:37 AMIt's an attractive argument David, but if it were extended logically, then you might be forced to argue that the Rowan student-athlete gets a better, more valuable experience than the Williams student-athlete.  I just don't see any way to make that idea work.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but it sure sounds like academic snobbery, a game I refuse to play.  I am only talking about the experience gained through intercollegiate athletics, and yes, I think it is plausible (not necessary, just plausible) that the Rowan footballer gets a better experience than his Williams counterpart in this regard.

It's not academic snobbery, it's simple economics.  Despite the fact that Williams has never won a Division III national football championship, a Williams degree (including athletic experience) is more valuable than a Rowan degree (including athletic experience).
Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 01:16:07 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 11:32:37 AMYou'll not find a better rivalry in college sports than Colby/Bates/Bowdoin for instance, and the Colby football player surely gets an enhancement to his football experience by the higher stakes atmosphere of those rivalry games.

I believe that is my point exactly.  So we agree.  But, as my friend smedindy points out, that does not mean that a playoff game necessarily detracts from the experience.  Looked at in isolation (that is, ignoring any other impacts such as time away from studying, etc.), if it is good for the Colby footballer to play Bates, it is also good for that footballer to play in a playoff game.

But as you're missing and as your Smendindy refuses to acknowledge, the majority of benefits derived from DIII football are realized during the regular season, and playoffs place a much greater additional burden on academics.   Regular season rivalry games are consistent with the "academics before athletics" goal, post-season playoffs are not.

They're exciting as heck, though.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 01:30:09 PM
I am not using karma. Why would accuse me of that? I've never given a karma point here?

And I still don't get how you've proven that playoffs put athletics ahead of academics. The stakes are higher, yes, but that does not mean that athletics takes precedence. Otherwise, no football player would be in class right now.

I would acknowledge it if you gave me some hard tangible proof, but I've yet to see it. And I assume the Academic All-Americans that populate playoff teams would like to see it as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 01:35:47 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 01:29:52 PMDespite the fact that Williams has never won a Division III national football championship, a Williams degree (including athletic experience) is more valuable than a Rowan degree (including athletic experience).

I've stated as clearly as I can that I'm not comparing the overall experience, just the value gained from playing football.  To me, it's not a question of comparing a Williams degree to a Rowan degree, it's a question of comparing a Williams degree without a playoff football game to one with a playoff football game.  And I don't come to the conclusion that one is better than the other, just that there are more 'plusses' associated with the latter than the former. 

Since I can't make this point any more clearly, and you either can't or won;t understand it, there's no point in my continuing to restate it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 01:46:07 PM
I would also contend that a doofus with a Williams degree is still a doofus, while a smart cookie with a Rowan degree will outperform the doofus in a Williams degree.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 01:58:05 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 01:35:47 PM
I've stated as clearly as I can that I'm not comparing the overall experience, just the value gained from playing football.

David, have you scrolled through my earlier posts on this subject?

I've stated as clearly as I can that you and many others are not comparing the value gained from playing football in the regular season with the marginal value added from playing football in post-season playoffs.

The marginal value added is small, but the academic impact is large.

Smed, if you think playoff-bound athletes aren't so distracted by their playoff games that their academic performance isn't affected, you're kidding yourself.  Don't kid yourself, kid me instead.   ;D

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 01:46:07 PM
I would also contend that a doofus with a Williams degree is still a doofus, while a smart cookie with a Rowan degree will outperform the doofus in a Williams degree.

Irrelevant and speculative.  A doofus with a Williams degree will still get job offers worth twice those that the Rowan smart cookie can land, and the Rowan cookie will have a difficult time ever reaching a playing field where he can outperform the Williams doofus.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 02:09:31 PM
If you don't believe me, come over here and talk to the players yourself. I think you'll find that they have everything in balance.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 02:28:12 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 02:09:31 PM
If you don't believe me, come over here and talk to the players yourself. I think you'll find that they have everything in balance.

I wish I understood what makes you think I believe otherwise.

I repeat the question, your honor:  Isn't the academic impact of post-season playoff participation much greater than the academic impact of the regular season?

I have never doubted the fact that many student athletes can survive the additional pressure, I've only questioned how a school can permit its athletes to endure such additional pressure while maintaining that the school promotes "academics over athletics" throughout.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 02:39:43 PM
No, it isn't. So the season is extended a week or two. The routine is set and comfortable - class, practice, study, with the occasional other outside activity or meeting thrown in for good measure.

The second round of the playoffs is during Thanksgiving break, so that's no big deal.

As it pushes toward December, finals do loom, but they loom for all athletes, all performers, all those in other clubs and activities.

In fact, there could be more pressure on the students that produce the weekly newspaper, since that comes out on a Thursday, which means that all of the work needs to get done during the week, which cuts into study time.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 03:12:01 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 02:39:43 PM
No, it isn't. So the season is extended a week or two. The routine is set and comfortable - class, practice, study, with the occasional other outside activity or meeting thrown in for good measure.

Wow,  I'm impressed, if skeptical.  If the Wabash men can maintain the same comfortable routine despite geometrically increasing tension over Depauw games and subsequent playoff games, they must be very um, . . . impressive . . . men.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 03:43:37 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 01:58:05 PMDavid, have you scrolled through my earlier posts on this subject?

I've stated as clearly as I can that you and many others are not comparing the value gained from playing football in the regular season with the marginal value added from playing football in post-season playoffs.

Right-o.  No question about it.  You have nailed it.  I am not attempting to quantify marginal value; I am saying ONLY that post-season football has a benefit over and above regular season value.  It also has a higher cost, which may destroy the net positive impact.  For that matter, there may not be a net positive impact even for the first game of the regular season.  Quantification of the costs and benefits must be left to the programs and athletes.  The very first thing I said when I made the mistake of joining this discussion is that I am unsure of where I stand on the question of the existence of national playoffs; but to the extent that you seem to be saying that there is NO benefit to be gained from having playoffs, I felt I had to disagree, since I think that's where the maximum benefit tends to lie.

By way of example, I think the football-playing students at Mt. Union derive more benefit from playing St. John's in the playoffs than by playing Marietta in the regular season.  The playoff game presents a greater challenge, more complex problems to solve, teaches respect, and generally builds character more efficiently (because of the quality of the opposition, not the fact that it is a post-season game.)  I also believe that the costs of conducting that game are higher, both in terms of finances (extending the season) and of tradeoffs (athletes have less time available to study, although that time may well be spent lifting weights or playing Nintendo.)  Whether these costs outweigh the benefits is not a question I can answer.  But it is every bit as valid a question for game 1 or game 6 as for game 11. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 07:48:46 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 03:43:37 PM
I am saying ONLY that post-season football has a benefit over and above regular season value.  It also has a higher cost, which may destroy the net positive impact.

I didn't understand that from your earlier post.  On this point we seem to agree, I just think it's an easy call that the cost in terms of increased academic difficulty outweighs the marginal benefit provided by the playoffs, which means academics aren't ahead of athletics for playoffs.

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 03:43:37 PM
For that matter, there may not be a net positive impact even for the first game of the regular season.

We might disagree on that point.  I think the benefits of regular season Division III football exceed the costs.

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 03:43:37 PM
to the extent that you seem to be saying that there is NO benefit to be gained from having playoffs, I felt I had to disagree, since I think that's where the maximum benefit tends to lie.

If that's the impression I've left, then I've not stated my position clearly.  I think that the biggest benefit from Division III football accrues in the regular season.

The post season adds value, but at much higher cost.  So much higher cost that I think it's impossible to claim that academics retain higher priority for athletes during post-season playoffs.

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 03:43:37 PMI think the football-playing students at Mt. Union derive more benefit from playing St. John's in the playoffs than by playing Marietta in the regular season.  The playoff game presents a greater challenge, more complex problems to solve, teaches respect, and generally builds character more efficiently (because of the quality of the opposition, not the fact that it is a post-season game.)

Do you agree with this comparison?

It is a slightly greater challenge to face St. Johns in the playoffs than to face Ohio Northern during the season; and
It is a MUCH greater challenge to face late semester academics while competing in the playoffs.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 08:36:26 PM
I don't think it's any more difficult than the person in theater, or giving musical performances, or putting out the school newspaper, or involved in any other activity or sport.

Define the higher costs, please, again? I still don't get it without data. Give me data. Tell me that football players grades suffer in November if they are in the playoffs - and that the kids in the activities above do not.

Again, data please.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 08:46:58 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 08:36:26 PM
Define the higher costs, please, again? I still don't get it without data. Give me data. Tell me that football players grades suffer in November if they are in the playoffs - and that the kids in the activities above do not.

Again, data please.

You're kidding me, right Smed?

I never said (here we go with you and ktroutvon again) that football players' grades necessarily suffer during playoffs.

I said:

1. Football players have enormous extra burdens placed on them during the playoffs, which take place late in the fall semester.

2. Those extra burdens make it much more difficult for football players to meet their increasingly high stakes late semester academic requirements.

3. Those extra burdens would not exist if those football players weren't competing in the playoffs.

With which do you disagree?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 09:50:28 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 07:48:46 PMDo you agree with this comparison?

It is a slightly greater challenge to face St. Johns in the playoffs than to face Ohio Northern during the season; and
It is a MUCH greater challenge to face late semester academics while competing in the playoffs.
I just don't have the information I need to quantify the costs and benefits.  I feel like I've already said that.   ::)
I didn't play sports in college, and college was so long ago for me that I've forgotten most of the athletes I knew.  Therefore I am ill-suited to discuss how much of a burden an 11th game is on a football-playing student.  But I think smeds makes a good point that lots of students have other things going on at that time of the semester, and there's no handwringing about it.  In my case, I found it difficult to find time for late-semester study after allocating time for the wide variety of debauchery in which I specialized.  In fact, by that time of the semester, I was regrettably forced to dispense with class attendance in favor of more, uhm, stimulating activities.   8)

Seriously, though, I understand your concern with the administration sanctioning a seemingly large obstacle to classroom performance, but I fail to understand how that obstacle is so much larger in week 11 than it was in week 10.

For the record, as to your tripart question to smeds, I'd tenatively agree with statements #1 and #2 (that football is a burden) but generally disagree with statement #3.  College kids seem to have a wonderful ability to find "extra burdens" if none are found for them. 

I rarely saw any football players in the library late on a Friday night.  The fact that I never set foot in the library late on a Friday night (let alone early on a Tuesday morning, or at almost any other time) doesn't change the fact that I never saw them there! ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 10:47:20 PM
I disagree that they are significant extra burdens, for one, for football players over other students with activities.

It is an extra game, but at least here the players treat each game equally.

Your implication was that their work suffers, mainly because you use the phrase athletics over academics. The subtext is there.

You fail to acknowledge that other students with activities in November and December also run into this same situation.

And you fail to acknowledge that one week of the playoffs falls during Thanksgiving break, when no classes are jeopardized.

And please, do not compare me to other posters. That is rude and condescending, and I do not like to communicate with those who are that.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 10:49:13 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 09:50:28 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 07:48:46 PMDo you agree with this comparison?

It is a slightly greater challenge to face St. Johns in the playoffs than to face Ohio Northern during the season; and
It is a MUCH greater challenge to face late semester academics while competing in the playoffs.
I just don't have the information I need to quantify the costs and benefits. I feel like I've already said that. ::)

That's the only difference--and it's a subtle difference--in our opinions.  I don't need to quantify the square footage to know that the woods behind my house are larger in area than my half acre lot.

The additional benefit of a playoff game (over and above the regular season benefit) is dwarfed by that playoff game's burden on the players' academics.

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 09:50:28 PM
I didn't play sports in college, and college was so long ago for me that I've forgotten most of the athletes I knew. Therefore I am ill-suited to discuss how much of a burden an 11th game is on a football-playing student.
It's not just an 11th game, it's a playoff game.  Big difference.

I played sports in college and trust me, the higher the stakes, the more difficult it is to focus on academics.

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 09:50:28 PM
But I think smeds makes a good point that lots of students have other things going on at that time of the semester, and there's no handwringing about it.
How many of Smed's "other activities" are athletic activities?  Division III doesn't say "academics before performances for our theater majors," or "academics before student newspaper for our journalism majors."  Division III says "academics before athletics."

Besides, how many of those "other activities" are additional, optional late semester-only activities sponsored by the institution?  Yes, the college bowl national competitor for instance, but that's a bit more academic than football.

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 09:50:28 PMFor the record, as to your tripart question to smeds, I'd tenatively agree with statements #1 and #2 (that football is a burden) but generally disagree with statement #3. College kids seem to have a wonderful ability to find "extra burdens" if none are found for them.
And few of those "extra burdens" are officially sanctioned by the administration.

I realize I'm asking you guys to focus on a narrow point.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 10:53:21 PM
It is not dwarfed - you make the statements, back them up, please. How much does it affect the academics? How much does it suffer?

At all schools, it is academics first before any activity. I think that is implicit.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: eaglemaniac on November 04, 2005, 11:18:59 PM
I've enjoyed your dialogue regarding this subject and hope you don't mind an outsiders viewpoint.
As I see it, you're talking about the benefits of a playoff vs. the toll it takes upon a student. I must say that life is short and you never know what it will bring. To limit one's ability to compete for a championship in my mind is very narrow minded no matter the short term (Read grade on test ) cost it might bring.
Some day these kids will be Parents and should never have to say "If only I'd had a chance" at a Title/Championship etc..... but instead were willing to accept the  "It's good enough to just play the game" attitude.  Life is about reaching for goals and if you think 4 years of college is the be all/end all of life, well you've got a rude awakening coming.. Sorry for my ranting....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 11:41:34 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 10:47:20 PM
I disagree that they are significant extra burdens, for one, for football players over other students with activities.
But to the extent the other students with activities are not athletes with athletic activities that are not known at the start of the season, those other students' activities are irrelevant to the issue of academics over athletics.

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 10:47:20 PM
It is an extra game, but at least here the players treat each game equally.
Even David, our non-athlete contributor, recognizes the fallacy in such a claim.  A playoff game is higher stakes against higher level competition.  If I were your players' coach I'd be upset if they treated the playoff game like any other game.

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 10:47:20 PMYour implication was that their work suffers, mainly because you use the phrase athletics over academics. The subtext is there.
That's your inference, not my implication.  I state that the burden is greater, I don't ever imply that individuals can't meet that burden.

But at least I'm honest enough to admit that it is an extra burden.  If the team weren't playing a playoff game, there'd be no athletic burden on the athletes' academics, right Smed?

I question whether a school can justify placing that extra burden on the athletes, for the sake of athletics, claiming all the while that it emphasizes academics over athletics.

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 10:47:20 PMYou fail to acknowledge that other students with activities in November and December also run into this same situation.
Athletic activities?

Athletic activities that are not known and scheduled in September when the semester starts?

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 10:47:20 PMAnd you fail to acknowledge that one week of the playoffs falls during Thanksgiving break, when no classes are jeopardized..
I always had classes on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.  Has that changed?

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 10:47:20 PMAnd please, do not compare me to other posters. That is rude and condescending, and I do not like to communicate with those who are that.
I'm sorry Smed, I really am.  I realized after I posted that you hadn't actually claimed that I said football players' grades necessarily suffer in November if they are in the playoffs.  You simply demanded that I tell you that football players' grades necessarily suffer in November if they are in the playoffs.  Therefore, the comparison to ktroutvon, who consistently accuses me of hiding meaning behind my words, was inappropriate.  Please accept my humble apologies.

And please understand that the question of whether or not the football players' grades necessarily suffer in November if they are in the playoffs is mostly irrelevant to the point I've raised.

Also, please understand that other, non-athletic activities in November and December are even more irrelevant.

My question remains whether a school can honestly claim that it is emphasizing academics over athletics when it permits its football team to participate in a five week post-season playoff.

You believe that the school can make that claim, because you believe that the fact they are students means academics comes before athletics.  I find that assertion laughable.  The same claim could be made in Division 1--would you believe it?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 11:54:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 10:53:21 PM
It is not dwarfed - you make the statements, back them up, please. How much does it affect the academics? How much does it suffer?
Smed, think back to when you were playing football.  Can you honestly say that there weren't some games that distracted you from academics more than other games?

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 10:53:21 PM
At all schools, it is academics first before any activity. I think that is implicit.

Including Division 1, right?  So why do we need Division III?

When the semester starts in September, the football team has an 8, 9, or 10 game season scheduled.  The players and the school can gauge the relative burden that the athletic schedule places on academics.

(Unless the players and the school administrators are incapable of recognizing or gauging such burdens, instead demanding data or throwing out red herrings such as comparison to "other activities," but I digress.)

When November 13 arrives, the football team may find that it has an additional athletic burden placed on it, one that wasn't known in September.  The burden on academics that the football team faced in September has now been met, and there is a new burden, one that may last for five weeks, increasing in intensity throughout.

Throughout those five weeks, the intensity of the academic burdens is likely increasing, as the school and the players understood in September.

The school is permitting an additional burden to be placed on the football players--entirely for the sake of athletics--during the time of increasing academic burden.  I don't see how that school can be claiming to be emphasizing academics over athletics by permitting that extra burden be placed on the football  players,  entirely for the sake of athletics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 05, 2005, 12:55:40 AM
I'm done. You don't get it.

Activities are what they are. They're scheduled, and added to. Forums and meetings crop up all of the time, unscheduled. Have you not been on a campus lately?

You treat EACH game like it was a playoff game, that's my point. You prepare for each game the same way.

We've dithered and harangued long enough.

There is no undue burden, not one that can't be met - not one that adversely affects student athletes in any way that they cannot meet it like any other student.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 05, 2005, 01:10:14 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 05, 2005, 12:55:40 AM
There is no undue burden, not one that can't be met - not one that adversely affects student athletes in any way that they cannot meet it like any other student.

But whether it can or can't be met is not the question I asked.  The question is whether the burden should be placed on athletes, while claiming that academics trump athletics?

I get it.  I wish you did.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 05, 2005, 01:40:42 AM
The question also could be phrased: "Are d3 athletes little children who need to be protected?"

I phrase it that way because I wonder if you REALLY think any d3 athlete sees making the post-season as a 'burden'?!

I teach at a d1 school (which admittedly has gone MANY seasons since any football player needed to worry about the post-season!), but where track and field athletes quite frequently are involved in the post-season during winter term finals.  For those who ARE student-athletes (there ARE some!) we negotiate a solution; those who are more athlete than student may well flunk out.  The post-season is a CHALLENGE; it is a PROBLEM only for athletes who are not really students, or for professors who are not willing to be flexible.  (And, yes, I also make accommodations for drama students, student news-reporters, those who must work full time, students with family emergencies, etc. - I never bend the standards, but I realize that my students have [sometimes messy] lives.)

Since Williams is so proud of the all-sports titles, I wonder why they 'coddle' ONLY their football players?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 05, 2005, 02:15:09 AM
I never thought of the Division III goal of "academics before athletics" as synonymous with "coddling athletes."

Some of these Division III students could overcome the additional academic burden of having their legs amputated.  Dr. Charles Krauthammer, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for the Washington Post, broke his neck while attending Harvard Medical school, yet still managed to complete his studies as a quadriplegic.  The fact that students can overcome tremendous burdens is not the issue.

No school--not even Harvard Medical School  ;)--would contemplate placing burdens on students such as those faced by Dr. Krauthammer, despite the fact that students can overcome such burdens.

Playoffs cause players to suffer a tremendous distraction from academics, anyone who maintains otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.

(With the possible exception of MUC) Playoffs are not part of the known, scheduled distraction that athletes will face.

Playoffs provide a slight increase in overall educational/academic-related benefits that accrue to the athletes, but that increase is small relative to the distraction from academics that the athletes will suffer, a distraction from academics that would not exist if the team were not in the playoffs.

Not participating in the playoffs means that there is no school-endorsed activity causing the football players a guaranteed distraction from academics.

Division III schools claim to promote academics over athletics, yet permit their athletes to accept a tremendous distraction from academics by participating in national playoffs.

Should we accept Division III schools abiding by a policy that says "we'll negotiate a solution--if you're more athlete than student, you'll flunk out?"  I thought the "academics before athletics" policy was designed to avoid having to negotiate such solutions.   I thought the Division III policy was designed to prevent Division III students from becoming more athlete than student.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: union89 on November 05, 2005, 02:17:32 AM
Storm ~

Just curious.......did you ever play in an NCAA sanctioned playoff game???
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on November 05, 2005, 05:04:31 AM
Why shouldn't the colleges treat the students as if they are young adults and allow each of them to decide what burdens to undertake rather than paternalistically decide on behalf of all students that the burdens of post-season play are too great and that consequently post-season play should be prohibited?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: bbald eagle on November 05, 2005, 07:19:58 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 01:14:57 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 03, 2005, 06:56:46 PM
why is football UNIQUELY bad for post-season competition?

Williams . . . obviously have a LOT of athletes spending a LOT of extra time in the post-season.  While football may involve more student-athletes (ONLY in d3 can I type that phrase without gagging!) than any other specific sport, ALL the sports Williams (or anyone else) participates in collectively dwarf football.  So, WHY is postseason in football different?

I just don't understand why football is being singled out (in the NESCAC and in this discussion).  MOST of the arguments apply to no one or apply to all sports.

Let's face it Doc, the biggest reason for the focus of the discussion is that this is d3football.com.


Hmm... D3sports.com, right?  Basketball, too.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 05, 2005, 07:47:40 AM
Quote from: union89 on November 05, 2005, 02:17:32 AM
Storm ~

Just curious.......did you ever play in an NCAA sanctioned playoff game???

Are you talking to me?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 05, 2005, 07:58:59 AM
Quote from: frank uible on November 05, 2005, 05:04:31 AM
Why shouldn't the colleges treat the students as if they are young adults and allow each of them to decide what burdens to undertake rather than paternalistically decide on behalf of all students that the burdens of post-season play are too great and that consequently post-season play should be prohibited?

Because the Division III colleges have pledged to promote academics before athletics.  Permitting students to choose for themselves would mean that the schools would be abandoning their pledge.

That would be wrong, don't you think Frank?

There is some attraction in your argument Frank, but I think it's a dangerously slippery slope.  It's analogous to those colleges that permit their students to choose their own curriculum, and to decide for themselves what is required for a bachelor's degree.  The graduates of such programs are universally not sufficiently prepared intellectually/academically to become productive adults.  I think that in those cases the colleges have abrogated their responsibility to educate the students.

Wait--did I just say "educate the students?"  What's that concept doing in here?  This is about football!  This is about playoffs!  Playoffs are more important than education!  Playoffs are more valuable than education!

Academics before athletics.  Riiiiiight.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on November 05, 2005, 10:43:48 AM
It's a beautiful morning, the coffee is fresh, it's the day of the Wittenberg game, and I was all prepared to be done with this increasingly inane debate.  But I can't just let this pass:
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 11:41:34 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 10:47:20 PM
It is an extra game, but at least here the players treat each game equally.
Even David, our non-athlete contributor, recognizes the fallacy in such a claim.  A playoff game is higher stakes against higher level competition.  If I were your players' coach I'd be upset if they treated the playoff game like any other game.

I never said or implied any such thing.  What I said was that there is more potential for character-building in a playoff game. 

I'm not disturberd or surprised that you misinterpreted my position; I'm used to that.  I am, however, extremely disturbed that you attempted to put words in my mouth.

I am also done with this conversation.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: union89 on November 05, 2005, 11:01:32 AM
Storm ~

Obviously, when I begin a statement with 'Storm' it is directed to you.  How do you know of the distractions which an NCAA playoff game entails??  Unless I'm mistaken, you have never played in one and are basing your comments on what you hear on TV.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 05, 2005, 12:12:12 PM
Quote from: union89 on November 05, 2005, 11:01:32 AM
Storm ~

Obviously, when I begin a statement with 'Storm' it is directed to you.  How do you know of the distractions which an NCAA playoff game entails??  Unless I'm mistaken, you have never played in one and are basing your comments on what you hear on TV.

How is that obvious?  My handle is RedSwarm81, why does "Storm" obviously refer to me?

I played college football, and I know firsthand the kind of mental distraction that a big game causes.  I also know that a winning season causes more mental distraction than a losing season, since there is naturally increased motivation by the athletes to place more emphasis on the continued success of the team, and thus academics are pressured.

I also competed in track at RPI, and if you've ever visited the indoor track at RPI, you could have seen my name on the wall as a multiple school record holder.  I only mention this to point out that I know firsthand the effects of high stakes athletic competition.

What makes you think I watch TV?

Most important U89, I'm smart (I went to RPI), and I apply my intelligence logically.  I am amazed at the extent to which people on this board are willing to go in their efforts to argue that a playoff game doesn't cause a tremendous distraction from academics, a distraction that wouldn't exist if the team weren't in the playoff game.

I don't believe you have stated your opinion, so I don't know where you stand on the issue.  You have only inquired of my athletic bona fides, despite the fact that they are essentially irrelevant to an academic topic such as this.

Union is such a good school U89, why not use your Union-honed intelligence to share with us your well thought out opinion?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: union89 on November 05, 2005, 12:52:58 PM
Storm ~

I take it that is a NO....you have not played in an NCAA playoff game.  The issues that you present in regard to 'distractions' toward academic growth are miniscule in comparison to lessons learned through team building and competition.......You probably missed out on those when you were running around the track in Troy.

Congrats on your picture being on the wall by the way.... :P
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 05, 2005, 08:29:43 PM
Quote from: union89 on November 05, 2005, 12:52:58 PM
The issues that you present in regard to 'distractions' toward academic growth are miniscule in comparison to lessons learned through team building and competition.......You probably missed out on those when you were running around the track in Troy.

Congrats on your picture (???) being on the wall by the way.... :P

U are such a blue collar hero, someone ought to make a movie about you.  You even graduated from Union, and you almost learned how to read, too.  How impressive.

I hesitate to ask this of U, because I've asked it of some brilliant people, and many of them have difficulty addressing it.

How much extra did you learn from playoffs that the regular season didn't teach you "through team building and competition?"
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 05, 2005, 09:08:54 PM
Man, if you want people to take you seriously, quit insulting them.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 05, 2005, 09:18:47 PM
redswarm,

You win, you have succeeded in killing off what could have been a very good discussion.

Through a combination of snobbery (which you deny), bullying (which you deny), boasting about your own achievements (I'll match IQ or SAT scores with you any day of the week, but I'm not STUPID enough to brag about it), and TOTALLY ignoring what other posters have said (I still have NO CLUE why you think football is different than any other sport, much less any other extra-curricular activity), you have alienated everyone here.

Good-bye and good-riddance.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 05, 2005, 09:27:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 05, 2005, 09:18:47 PM
redswarm,

You win, you have succeeded in killing off what could have been a very good discussion.

Through a combination of snobbery (which you deny), bullying (which you deny), boasting about your own achievements (I'll match IQ or SAT scores with you any day of the week, but I'm not STUPID enough to brag about it), and TOTALLY ignoring what other posters have said (I still have NO CLUE why you think football is different than any other sport, much less any other extra-curricular activity), you have alienated everyone here.

Good-bye and good-riddance.

Bon voyage Doc, but I really don't think you're a sissy.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 05, 2005, 09:42:11 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on November 05, 2005, 10:43:48 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 11:41:34 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 10:47:20 PM
It is an extra game, but at least here the players treat each game equally.
Even David, our non-athlete contributor, recognizes the fallacy in such a claim.  A playoff game is higher stakes against higher level competition.  If I were your players' coach I'd be upset if they treated the playoff game like any other game.

I never said or implied any such thing.  What I said was that there is more potential for character-building in a playoff game. 

I'm not disturberd or surprised that you misinterpreted my position; I'm used to that.  I am, however, extremely disturbed that you attempted to put words in my mouth.

I am also done with this conversation.

Gee David, I'm really sorry.  I misinterpreted your contention that the playoff game had more important educational aspects (due in part, if not entirely to its higher stakes) to imply that the players treated that playoff game differently than a regular season game.

I'll pay you whatever damages you feel  you've suffered.

I've clarified and explained until I'm blue in the text, and yet it remains a simple proposition:


Yet you run away.  I'm unimpressed at how sensitive many of the football loving posters in this forum are.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: union89 on November 05, 2005, 10:57:26 PM
Storm ~

You can't be that ignorant to not understand the point we are all attempting to make.  Achieving an NCAA playoff bid is the ultimate goal during double sessions....after that, you control your own destiny.  When you sweat, study and sometimes shed a tear alongside your fellow teammates in August.....playing in December is awfully rewarding....take my word for it...others will back me up I'm sure (although you have no idea because you were busy getting dizzy running around in circles).

All, come visit the Liberty League board....we have a ton of fun and deal with Storm's immaturity on a daily basis.

Has he metioned 1,000 times that he's an attorney yet??
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 05, 2005, 11:05:16 PM
When you've run off me, Ypsi, and DC from a discussion, you've done something...goodbye and good luck. Hope you have fun talking to yourself.

Again, if you wouldn't insult people, it may be different. Alas, not meant to be.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 06, 2005, 01:23:43 AM
Quote from: union89 on November 05, 2005, 10:57:26 PM
Storm ~

You can't be that ignorant to not understand the point we are all attempting to make.  Achieving an NCAA playoff bid is the ultimate goal during double sessions....after that, you control your own destiny.  When you sweat, study and sometimes shed a tear alongside your fellow teammates in August.....playing in December is awfully rewarding....take my word for it...others will back me up I'm sure (although you have no idea because you were busy getting dizzy running around in circles).

I understand all that.

It sure sounds to me as if you're saying that sometimes, it's okay to put athletics before academics.  That's a perfectly acceptable position to take, but don't try and convince me that you're saying the opposite, that somehow the playoffs place academics before athletics.

Please don't insult my intelligence that way.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on November 06, 2005, 01:50:25 AM
redswarm: In DIII if it is done right, athletics, including inter-collegiate football, is part of education. Undoubtedly you like "jonny utah" and others prefer the order of authority over the messiness of freedom which I prefer. I submit that permitting students to make their own choices despite the risks of error is educational (beside it is democratic). You and jonny will never agree with me nor I with you.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 06, 2005, 02:38:01 AM
Quote from: frank uible on November 06, 2005, 01:50:25 AM
redswarm: In DIII if it is done right, athletics, including inter-collegiate football, is part of education. Undoubtedly you like "jonny utah" and others prefer the order of authority over the messiness of freedom which I prefer. I submit that permitting students to make their own choices despite the risks of error is educational (beside it is democratic). You and jonny will never agree with me nor I with you.

So if you were a DIII college administrator, and you had pledged to place academics before athletics, when it came time to decide whether or not to permit participation in a five week playoff at the end of the fall semester, you would say "let the students decide, the risks of error is an educational, so that means I'm keeping academics before athletics?"

You're probably right that we'll never agree, but I don't understand what you think the pledge to place academics before athletics means, or why any school made such a pledge.  It seems to be a pretty flexible pledge.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on November 06, 2005, 08:09:06 AM
I believe the pledge is misstated. Athletics should not be treated as if it is apart from education any more than other extracurriculars should be. Students as young adults should have the experience and option of participating or refraining from participation in extracurriculars as a part of their education - participation including strongly influencing and in most cases controlling determination of the nature and extent of the extracurriculars in which they participate.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: bbald eagle on November 06, 2005, 11:25:37 AM
Quote from: frank uible on November 06, 2005, 01:50:25 AMIn DIII if it is done right, athletics, including inter-collegiate football, is part of education.

How can anyone dispute this?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: bbald eagle on November 06, 2005, 11:36:06 AM
Quote from: frank uible on November 06, 2005, 01:50:25 AMIn DIII if it is done right, athletics, including inter-collegiate football, is part of education.

Heck ... If D1 & 2 were done right ... this would be true of everybody.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 10, 2005, 05:54:34 PM
Quote from: frank uible on November 06, 2005, 08:09:06 AM
I believe the pledge is misstated. Athletics should not be treated as if it is apart from education any more than other extracurriculars should be.

Did I misstate the pledge?  How do you think it ought to be stated, Frank?  Division III is an affiliation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association.  Is there a national collegiate organization regarding all extracurriculars including athletics?

Your statement re: athletics and extracurriculars with respect to education is fine in the abstract.  For the sake of this wonderful openminded discussion let's assume that the colleges have pledged "athletics and extracurriculars before academics."

I keep driving everyone to distraction by pointing out a big difference when it comes to Division III football playoffs:

The playoffs are an addition to the regular season, of unknown duration.  The playoffs last five weeks for two teams,  with each of the five successive weeks growing in stakes and distraction from academics.  I don't know of any extracurricular activity during the fall semester that affects as many students with an unscheduled additional distraction from academics as powerful as the Division III playoffs.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on November 10, 2005, 08:18:51 PM
redswarm: I suspect that for the sake of arguable balance in education I would be willing to forego (and possibly desirous of foregoing) DIII football playoffs entirely well before most people would and certainly even more before most posters on these boards would. After all, these DIII colleges got along very well in the education business long before there were any playoffs. Nonetheless the number of games played by any college, the dates and times of those games and the opponents involved should be decided by the stakeholders of that college (and  of course the stakeholders of its opponents since the consent of each of the opponents is indispensable with respect to the game with that opponent). What I think about the subject is only relevant to the extent that I am a stakeholder in the college in question.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 13, 2005, 10:06:31 PM
Quote from: frank uible on November 10, 2005, 08:18:51 PM
DIII colleges got along very well in the education business long before there were any playoffs.
Point well taken, one which Williams, Trinity, Wesleyan and Amherst et al appear to endorse. . . . for football.

Quote from: frank uible on November 10, 2005, 08:18:51 PMNonetheless the number of games played by any college, the dates and times of those games and the opponents involved should be decided by the stakeholders of that college (and  of course the stakeholders of its opponents since the consent of each of the opponents is indispensable with respect to the game with that opponent).
Subject, of course, to the Division III pledge of academics before education, right?

Yours is a point which I think deserves a lot of attention, but one which none of our too-polite-for-this-topic academic intellectuals have raised.  I think that the NESCAC schools get as much value out of their longstanding regional rivalries as other Division III schools get out of the NCAA playoffs.

What I think is terrific food for thought is the question whether all DIII schools have sufficient local rivals to make it worthwhile?  I went to a the 103d game in a terrific local rivalry between RPI and Union, for the Dutchman's Shoes Trophy.  This game was HUGE for everyone involved--the Liberty League Board had dozens of posts by alumni who claimed to have called in sick from work due to the excitement of the game.  It's difficult to imagine either team investing much more in any playoff game, and (I hope the very sensitive Mr. Collinge won't choke on his crumpet) I see that either team would stand little if anything to gain in terms of life lessons from a playoff game, over and above what the Dutchman's Shoes game taught.

But take away that rivalry, and I do see a significant deficit.  RPI was giving serious consideration in the late 70s to dropping its football program entirely.  Would Union have been able to fill such a hole in its school spirit/athetics/extracurricular education by attaching rivalry status to . . . Hobart?  St. Lawrence?

St. Lawrence is way the heck up in near Canada, fer Chrissakes.  Its natural geographic rival is Clarkson, but Clarkson doesn't play football.  Who is Utica's natural rival?  Or Alfred's, or Hobart's for that matter?  Can local rivalries occupy every Division III school's schedule?

Quote from: frank uible on November 10, 2005, 08:18:51 PM
What I think about the subject is only relevant to the extent that I am a stakeholder in the college in question.
Well Frank, I'm thrilled that you're enough of a stakeholder to post your thoughts here on a public forum intended for the posting of thoughts.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on November 13, 2005, 10:43:47 PM
In my judgment, merely posting here or anywhere else does not qualify me to be a stakeholder in any college for the purpose of my being entitled to influence its policies. In other words, colleges should regard what I say here as only hot air and should act accordingly. On the other hand, if I should contribute a hundred million dollars....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 14, 2005, 07:03:31 AM
Quote from: frank uible on November 13, 2005, 10:43:47 PM
In my judgment, merely posting here or anywhere else does not qualify me to be a stakeholder in any college for the purpose of my being entitled to influence its policies. In other words, colleges should regard what I say here as only hot air and should act accordingly. On the other hand, if I should contribute a hundred million dollars....
It would never have occurred to me that posting a message on Post Patterns at D3Football.com might have anything to do with actually influencing colleges' behavior.

I thought that the Post Patterns were simply for posting opinions to share with other D3Football.com readers.

I wonder how/why I lost karma overnight?  For that matter, I wonder why anyone would care enough about others' opinions to read Post Patterns, yet give me negative karma for posting my opinion.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on November 14, 2005, 08:47:49 AM
redswarm: I don't vote on karma. I believe that it is harmless silliness, but don't be surprised that your karma may ebb and flow for no apparent reason. I'm sure people invest more emotion in these boards than I can imagine with any specificity.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 14, 2005, 09:24:03 AM
Quote from: frank uible on November 14, 2005, 08:47:49 AM
redswarm: I don't vote on karma. I believe that it is harmless silliness, but don't be surprised that your karma may ebb and flow for no apparent reason. I'm sure people invest more emotion in these boards than I can imagine with any specificity.
Concur.

In LLspeak, I believe that's "RS81 agrees with everything the U of Frank just said."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: albinomascot19 on November 14, 2005, 08:32:38 PM
I would love to see more coverage of DIII!  I think this site does a very effective job in doing that.  But, what I mean here is media coverage, such as some national network.  I know we already saw Grinnell with their "system."  But how about more DIII sports coverage (media) 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 15, 2005, 10:42:43 PM
Most recent NCAA News focuses on the "anti-reform" amendments that will come up for votes in the January meeting.  These have been proposed by the CCIW, NCAC, WIAC, Commonwealth Coast, etc., and include redshirting, non-traditional segments, and in-region philosophy.

http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2005/11_07_05/division_iii/4223n23.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: oldpa on November 16, 2005, 04:51:42 AM
Athletics are a distraction from acedemics if you don't consider athletics part of the overall education. If you do, a playoff game is no more than extra credit.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on November 16, 2005, 08:24:08 PM
Ralph -

And those enlightened proposals ahve NO SHOT at actually winning approval.  It's actually far more likely that things will get worse for us as even more stringent reforms are put in place. 

At the risk of saying something bound to be unpopular, here I go.  The problem here is that most college presidents don't like athletics and many do wahtever they can to limit the power of athletics programs without ticking off alumni.  By using the NCAA process to "reform" D3, the presidents are gaining more campus control and oplay to the folks who say "academics should be first."

What they arent saying is that they are afraid of the faculty and they dont want to lose power to athletic departments.  So, in one move, the presidents ingratiate themselves with the faculty and also minimize the athletic programs.  They  do this at the expense of the student athletes and they should be ashamed of themselves.

C

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 16, 2005, 08:40:41 PM
Coach C:

While I don't necessarily share your sentiments about "most college presidents" -- I simply don't have the hard facts -- I will admit that some may well act like the south end of a northbound horse about athletics (and, at times, even academics) ....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2005, 09:12:02 PM
As Clark Kerr (president of the University of California system) famously put it 40 years ago (paraphrased):

College presidents need only provide three things to keep everyone happy:

Sex for the students
Parking for the faculty
Athletics for the alumni

They AIN'T gonna neglect #3 TOO much if they want to keep their jobs!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on November 16, 2005, 09:26:27 PM
Warren -

I was trying to refrain from the eggheads vs the jocks thing, but i think that is part of the issue here.

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on November 16, 2005, 09:27:59 PM
Mr. Ypsi -

I think they are pretty smart people.  They arent neglecting athletics, they are 'reforming' mathletics.  they leave just enough intact for the alumni to root for.

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on November 17, 2005, 02:49:39 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2005, 09:12:02 PM
As Clark Kerr (president of the University of California system) famously put it 40 years ago (paraphrased):

College presidents need only provide three things to keep everyone happy:

Sex for the students
Parking for the faculty
Athletics for the alumni

They AIN'T gonna neglect #3 TOO much if they want to keep their jobs!

Maybe if they changed it up and provided sex for the alumni they could do a better job of boosting the endowment figures.  :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 17, 2005, 03:11:51 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 17, 2005, 02:49:39 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 16, 2005, 09:12:02 PM
As Clark Kerr (president of the University of California system) famously put it 40 years ago (paraphrased):

College presidents need only provide three things to keep everyone happy:

Sex for the students
Parking for the faculty
Athletics for the alumni

They AIN'T gonna neglect #3 TOO much if they want to keep their jobs!

Maybe if they changed it up and provided sex for the alumni they could do a better job of boosting the endowment figures.  :D

Greg:

How do we know they don't?  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on November 17, 2005, 03:29:04 AM
WT, you're not hinting about shenanigans at Lebanon Valley, now, are you?  :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 17, 2005, 07:10:27 AM
GS:

Nah, we keep our alums happy with bologna, scrapple, and shoo-fly pie. Plus, the really big sugar-daddy donors get to sit next to Hot Dog Frank in the Peace Garden.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on November 17, 2005, 09:01:55 AM
Are we assuming that the Faculty don't want sex?  Just the students and alumni?  Warren - care to comment?

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 17, 2005, 09:04:52 AM
Coach C:

My lips are   :-X.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on November 17, 2005, 10:32:37 AM
So if students are sleeping with faculty, does that mean alumni get both parking and athletics?   ??? 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 17, 2005, 10:51:27 AM
DC:

Not at Lebanon Valley ... we're Methodist-related, you see.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on November 17, 2005, 12:03:53 PM
So Methodists don't have sex?  Then where do baby Methodists come from?  Do they just sprout anew each spring?

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 17, 2005, 12:08:30 PM
Coach C:

I ain't gonna go there, not nohow, not never! Nor will I tell where baby Lutherans come from ....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on November 17, 2005, 12:16:35 PM
Didn't you know?  Methodists are perennials, just plant one and you get a bunch every spring.  Lutherans are annuals, you have to plant new ones every year.  Both are grown organically by the Amish.

If the students are getting sex from faculty in the parking lot, who are the alumni watching play the sports and where do they park?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on November 18, 2005, 02:45:42 AM
Quote from: knightstalker on November 17, 2005, 12:16:35 PM
Didn't you know? Methodists are perennials, just plant one and you get a bunch every spring.

Unfortunately, they do not grow to perfection.  ;)

Quote from: knightstalker on November 17, 2005, 12:16:35 PM
Lutherans are annuals, you have to plant new ones every year.

Best grown in very cold climates. Fertilize copiously with jello mold.

Quote from: knightstalker on November 17, 2005, 12:16:35 PM
Both are grown organically by the Amish.

... and then sold at robber-baron prices to the unsuspecting "English".

Quote from: knightstalker on November 17, 2005, 12:16:35 PM
If the students are getting sex from faculty in the parking lot, who are the alumni watching play the sports and where do they park?

Alumni's on second. Parking's on third.  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 18, 2005, 08:20:09 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 18, 2005, 02:45:42 AM
Quote from: knightstalker on November 17, 2005, 12:16:35 PM
Didn't you know? Methodists are perennials, just plant one and you get a bunch every spring.

Unfortunately, they do not grow to perfection.  ;)

Quote from: knightstalker on November 17, 2005, 12:16:35 PM
Lutherans are annuals, you have to plant new ones every year.

Best grown in very cold climates. Fertilize copiously with jello mold.

Quote from: knightstalker on November 17, 2005, 12:16:35 PM
Both are grown organically by the Amish.

... and then sold at robber-baron prices to the unsuspecting "English".

Quote from: knightstalker on November 17, 2005, 12:16:35 PM
If the students are getting sex from faculty in the parking lot, who are the alumni watching play the sports and where do they park?

Alumni's on second. Parking's on third.  ;D

Actually, I don't know is on third.  Parking is the left-handed mid-inning reliever that is only available between midnight and 6 am. :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 18, 2005, 08:37:26 AM
So, Ralph, there's at least one other poster out there ancient enough to remember A & C's "Who's On First" routine ....  ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 18, 2005, 09:17:14 AM
I would have to say that Sager is in the same metaphorical ball park as we two!  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on November 18, 2005, 09:27:43 AM
What?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 18, 2005, 09:42:32 AM
Quote from: knightstalker on November 18, 2005, 09:27:43 AM
What?

What's on second. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 18, 2005, 09:46:18 AM
And I Don't Give A Damn..... ;D :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on November 18, 2005, 09:48:42 AM
Tomorrow
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: oldpa on November 18, 2005, 09:55:20 AM
I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on November 18, 2005, 10:14:39 AM
So let me get this straight:  the Future of Division III involves sex in the parking lot, gin before breakfast, planted Lutherans, and "Who's on First?"  Where's the NCAA when you really need them?  :D

(Actually, that description sounds an awful lot like my college experience, so maybe this is not the "Future of DIII" but rather the distant past?)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on November 18, 2005, 04:06:31 PM
DC:

You "planted Lutherans" as part of your college experience? Clarify soonest ....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on November 19, 2005, 06:53:23 PM
Quote from: Coach C on November 16, 2005, 08:24:08 PM
At the risk of saying something bound to be unpopular, here I go.  The problem here is that most college presidents don't like athletics and many do whatever they can to limit the power of athletics programs without ticking off alumni.  By using the NCAA process to "reform" D3, the presidents are gaining more campus control and play to the folks who say "academics should be first."

What they arent saying is that they are afraid of the faculty and they dont want to lose power to athletic departments.  So, in one move, the presidents ingratiate themselves with the faculty and also minimize the athletic programs.  They  do this at the expense of the student athletes and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Welcome to the unpopular speaker club, Coach.   ;D

I haven't read the "anti-reform" proposals, so I really can't speak to how enlightened they are.  That said, isn't it proper though that Division III administrations "play to those who say 'academics should come first?' "  Division III's premise is that academics should come first.  The controversy is in trying to determine exactly where and when athletics pass academics.

The NESCAC says that a ninth regular season football game would  threaten academics' priority.  As Keith McMillan's "Around the Nation" column pointed out, NESCAC students aren't exactly suffering--they're not even complaining.

I've had a lot of animosity directed toward me because I dare to suggest that a school that permits its football team to play in 15 games, where the last five games are of increasingly higher "winner take all" stakes (and likely played during final exams), ought to think carefully about its commitment to placing academics ahead of athletics.

If the student athletes truly want to emphasize athletics over academics, they don't belong in Division III at all, don't you agree?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on November 21, 2005, 10:52:33 AM

Did you see this score (http://ecgulls.collegesports.com/sports/w-baskbl/recaps/112005aac.html)  That is rediculous.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 21, 2005, 10:57:41 AM
It is ridiculous.

The minutes are way off in the second half. that's just shoddy stat keeping... ;D :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on January 08, 2006, 08:46:14 AM
Don't you just love irony?

On Tuesday, the star running back of the 2002 BCS Champion is arraigned on two first degree felony counts of aggravated robbery.

(That particular Tuesday just happens to be three years from the very day that the 2002 BCS Championship game was played).

The next day, Texas and Southern Cal play what could easily be described as the greatest college football game ever.

I love irony, don't you?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 09, 2006, 01:44:48 PM
Voting on Legislation is occurring today at the National Convntion.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/

Scroll down middle column and click on DIII in division specific news!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 09, 2006, 03:23:51 PM

There are some interesting proposals in there:

I like the one about making any play in a season cost a season of elligibility.  That would prevent those basketball players with one year left from stretching that over two season by only playing in the second semester of each.  That has always seemed wrong to me.  Am I reading the intentions there correctly?

What are the chances the "in-region" criteria gets dropped from consideration?

The CCC is still harping on the free AQ to new conferences.  I wonder if, instead of a split, the CCC might not be gearing up for a "super-conference" split a la the MAC.  That free AQ qould certainly come in handy then.

They are also cracking down on fancy dinners for recruiting trips.  That's just wrong.  The kid is already going to have to pay their own way to school, the NCAA should at least let the coach take them out for a nice dinner while they're on campus.  I know they shouldn't get special privilages, but regulating meals to being on campus and "on a scale comparable to normal student life?"

In the same spirit, can we pass the rule allowing occasional meals?  Wait, so does this mean if the coach has the team over to her house for dinner before a big game that they are violating D3 rules?  Ralph, help me out on this one.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 09, 2006, 03:35:20 PM

Do we know why the ASC hasn't attempted the "super-conference" split yet?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 09, 2006, 03:50:34 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 09, 2006, 03:23:51 PM
I wonder if, instead of a split, the CCC might not be gearing up for a "super-conference" split a la the MAC. 

It remains to be seen how long the MAC remains a "super-conference."  ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 09, 2006, 04:08:14 PM
New items posted to both Daily Doses about today's voting results.
http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/?p=180
http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=111
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 09, 2006, 05:42:55 PM
Hoops Fan, I wrote this on Page #20 of the ASC Men's Hoops Message Board.


------------------------------------------------------------------
The NCAA is considering legislation that will authorize a self-study period in 2006-08 that will allow some conferences to re-align without the loss of the AQ.  That may be the time when we can get this done.

When UT-Tyler comes on board in 2007-08, the ASC-East will have the minimum 7 teams in:

1) Men's and Women's Soccer (Fall)
2) Men's and Women's Cross Country (Fall)
3) M & W Hoops (Winter)
4) Softball/Baseball (Spring).


ETBU's adding Men's and Women's Tennis and LC's adding Men's Tennis would give the ASC-East its 5th sport for men and a 5th for women.   (D3 Tennis is considering adding the AQ for Tennis conference team champions.)

UOzarks and Louisiana College adding Volleyball would provide the 7 teams necessary for the AQ and would be a 6th (women's) team sport for the ASC-East.

An official conference must offer one team sport for men and one team sport for women in each season and five and five total. (Bylaw 3.3.2.2.3)

As for the West, HPU is adding M & W soccer in the 2006.

The West would have at least 7 teams in

Men's and Women's Soccer (Fall),
Volleyball (Fall),
Men's and Women's Hoops (Winter)
Men's and Women's Tennis (Spring),
Baseball/Softball (Spring),

The 6 football teams in the ASC-West qualify as an official conference and the addition of the 3 ASC East teams as affiliates would maintain the Pool A AQ. (This is actually pretty common in D3.  The Northwest Conference is headed there with Menlo; the ODAC has Catholic as an affiliate; the MIAA is using Wisconsin Lutheran until Tri-State finishes provisional; Maryville is an affilliate in the USAC, etc.)

That is 5 men's and 5 women's teams with no additional teams necessary.  That gives the ASC-West full status as a new conference and the accompanying AQ's.


-------------------------------------------------------------

With the NCAA requiring 6 sports for schools over 1000 students, the self-study (as passes by legislation today) would need to evaluate that.

This allows that schools to maximize AQ options, but you have no leeway with the minimum number of schools in some sports.  One departure and you are in trouble, e.g. Austin College.

A year ago, Mississippi College was talking about moving to D2.  On Pat Coleman's blog about the "Interstate 8" (and not the freeway in San Diego County  ;) )  he mentioned the potential of new conference in the southeastern US, the "Little SEC" for lack of a better term.

Austin College is going to the SCAC in August 2006.  The ASC is not a super conference, just a numercially large one that contributes to the numerator for calculations for Pool C bids in D3. ;)  I still wonder about the desire of UT-Tyler with very nice, new, state-funded facilities remaining in D3 or moving to the D2 Lone Star Conference.

I no longer see the ASC splitting into 2 conferences, unless there are significant guarantees and commitments to new expenditures for programs and facilities made amongst the 15 members of the 2 divisions/new conferences.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: mizzou_mafia on January 10, 2006, 10:17:57 AM
An article/interview with the chairman of the President's Council, recapping some of the recent voting and some the Council's philosophy.

http://www.dnronline.com/sports_details.php?AID=2419&CHID=3
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2006, 10:32:55 AM
I believe that I have detected a discrepancy between Pat's report and the DNR interview.

Did the measure on the Redshirt year at other classifications fail or did it pass?

Pat says that the measure failed 203-199 and 3 more nay votes would have swung it.

The DNR report suggests the opposite, that D3 will refuse to permit a student-athlete who was redshirted by his coach the opportunity to compete in all 4 years of his eligibility.

I agree with Pat on this one.  The Presidents Council failed to comprehend the real dynamics of redshirting at other levels of intercollegiate athletics.

Please clarify, altho' I am inclined to believe Pat Coleman over Joe Lemire.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2006, 10:47:07 AM
The NCAA Web site has not updated its "Voting Results" section, nor did I find a press release concering the voting.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 10, 2006, 02:35:27 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2006, 10:32:55 AM
Please clarify, altho' I am inclined to believe Pat Coleman over Joe Lemire.

Thanks, although I am inclined to believe an outgoing member of the presidents council over my source, unfortunately.

If so, it's a sad day for Division III. We just became a lot more isolationist.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on January 10, 2006, 02:44:07 PM
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say it appears that some institutitions/conferences are trying to force a showdown and possibly a split among the D-III ranks.  OK I have to get back to the grassy knoll now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 10, 2006, 03:04:53 PM
I have been told that the DNR report is incorrect on the result of the vote regarding restrictive redshirts. I can't say more without outing my source but the explanation I received leaves me confident our report is accurate.

Still will wait for the NCAA site to load for the final word but I'm alright with it for now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2006, 03:19:14 PM
Should the "redshirt" proposal have passed, then the next strategy would be to appeal thru the SAAC.

The students could plead that case very effectively...

Betty Jones is looking at a D1 basketball full ride at State U vs. a nice academic/merit-based financial aid package at local private D3.  She gets chooses to take a chance at State U, the coach redshirts her!  Bingo! She loses a year of eligibility.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 10, 2006, 03:22:14 PM
http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/01/10/ncaa

Rejecting a Presidents Council recommendation, however, the membership voted 203-199 not to subtract a year of eligibility from an athlete who redshirted in Division I or II and then transferred to Division III. "I'm not too upset about that one," (Bridgewater, Va., president Philip) Stone said. "Even people who voted for the redshirt ban were sympathetic in this case."

Thanks to Coach C for picking that out.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: mizzou_mafia on January 10, 2006, 03:47:42 PM
Ralph,

I just skimmed the voting part of the DNR article after reading the results that Pat posted on the blog.  I didn't notice the contradiction until later this morning when you pointed it out.  I was guessing the reporter's source was Stone, but maybe not...or maybe he got it mixed up over the phone call. 

In any case, thanks for following up and staying on top of it Pat!

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 10, 2006, 05:12:46 PM
The vote turning down the re-establishment of redshirts at the D-3 level, based upon its numbering, seems to have been roughly divided on public/private grounds.  If I were to join Knightstalker on the grassy knoll, I'd want to examine that a little closer.  In one of the articles posted above the Rhode Island Prez talks about getting a group to represent the interests of the D3 public schools.  Not to say he shouldn't, or doing so would be bad, but I will say that such a group may have big implications in the future.

I'm personally of the opinion that the three levels of the NCAA need some juggling again-- D2 is the smallest of the 3 and not growing (if at all) even close to as fast as D3, which is talking now about capping membership altogether.  Given that the NAIA is a mere shell of its former self, I'll bet a bunch of NAIA members explore moving over in the next year or face the possibility of being "forced" to D2.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2006, 06:53:28 PM
Johnnie, I think that the NAIA will continue as its "shell".

In the Red River AC, the schools can pick and choose their porgrams.  The NAIA-1 College of the Southwest in Hobbs NM has no winter sports, 4 men and 6 women.

http://www.csw.edu/athletics/menssports.asp

NAIA-1 Northwood Institute in a Dallas suburb has 4 men's and 4 women's and no winter sports.

Imagine...no men's or women's basketball and they are happy doing that way.

I think that D2 will remain as it is.  The NCAA is giving D2 plenty of resources to define itself.  If there are strong conferences that will help their members, then D2 will have a reason to exist.  Also, you comment about being a haven for NAIA programs may be right.

UTPB has just accepted an invitation to join the non-football-playing D-2 Heartland Conference from the NAIA.  They were wanting to move from the NAIA-1 Red River AC.

http://www.utpb.edu/utpb_student/students/athletics/utpb_athletics_page_index.html

Also, Texas A&M International in Laredo TX is moving from NAIA-1 Red River AC  to the Heartland Conference in Fall 2006.

The Red River AC is also losing Langston OK University to D2.

This should be interesting down here.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Flea on January 10, 2006, 11:56:10 PM
Has anyone else heard about this idea?
NCAA Division I-A (keeps current status)
NCAA Division I-AA (keeps current status)
NCAA Division I-AAA (current NCAA Division II)

The present day 456 memeber NCAA Division III would split into . . .
NCAA Division II
NCAA Division III

criteria?
- academic standards
- enrollment
- comprehensive fees
- school's choice
- any other ideas?


Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 11, 2006, 08:34:24 AM
Flea Shooter:

Interesting idea above.  Got a source for it?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 11, 2006, 10:03:59 AM
I'd be surprised if the powers that be in D-1 would allow a *new* that they would have to fund.  There seems to be a real hesitancy about funding non-revenue programs/divisions more than they need to. 

I really see a divide in D2.  There was a big deal about decreasing the number of required scholarships a year or so which led to a lot of hard feelings within the division.  It has to be hard at the D2 level-- athletic departments have added costs (read: scholarships) without much, if any, added revenue (when MIAC schools outdraw D-2 NSIC schools for football and basketball, there is a major problem at that level).  Revenue producers at that level either have some D-1 program (hockey at SCSU, UMD, UND, Mankato State, UNO, NMU, Mich. Tech., BSU) or are a big deal in an area without big deals (Nebraska Kearney, Pittsburg State come to mind).  I assume, but cannot prove, that everyone else in the division likes the philosophy of giving some scholarships but do not see their revenue backing it up.

I think for many D2 schools, D3 would be an attractive setup-- less costs in the athletic department, yet the same or similar students may still come to those schools, with many D2 schools being public and having lower tuition than their generally private D3 counterparts.

So I'd like to see D1-AA as the melting pot of scholarship programs, with D-2 becoming a large-school/tuition under $20,000 division while D-3 is everyone else (except if a school opts into D-2).  In the Midwest, I'd see the NSIC (whose schools are public, tuition comparable to UW-XXX schools, and size comparable to UW-XXX schools) staying at D-2, while the NCC (most of whose schools sponsor at least 1 D-1 sport already) moves to D1-AA.   

Thoughts? 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Flea on January 11, 2006, 11:35:08 AM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 11, 2006, 08:34:24 AM

Interesting idea above.  Got a source for it?


A coaching friend of mine from one of the top D2 schools in the nation heard from his AD at a recent staff meeting.

This would mean D2 and D3 with be non-scholarship (if I was not clear before).

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 11, 2006, 11:43:05 AM

Were such a scenario realized, it might destroy some current D3 conferences, with some members opting for D2 and others for D3. In other words, an unholy mess.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 11, 2006, 12:08:28 PM
I understand the mess some realignment would cause; but any mess is unavoidable when you're dealing with such a topic.  But the huge administrative tent that is D3, under which anything that D1, D2 and the NAIA don't want to deal with, is really getting burdened.

Flea, I struggle with a split within D3 as to where to draw the lines.  A strict enrollment line is tough because the majority of D3 institutions have enrollments about 2000 students; so if you made the cutoff line around there, you may have a school of 2050 having to play against schools that have 10,000 students, while a school of 2049 is the big fish in a small pond.  So enrollment may not work.  And if you made the enrollment cutoff at, say, 5,000 students, then you have a really small D2 and still a big D3, unless you can keep some current D2ers home.

Tuition cost lines have more variance, but also allow more play in the rules.  We all know the real cost of college is not the sticker price; so penalizing an apparent low tuition school while a high tuition-high student aid school doesnt get pushed one way may be unfair.

I tend to believe a line on public/private is more fair.  Private schools tend to have high endowments but also have nobody backing them up; public schools have the state to help but have to wade through that red tape and wait behind the state's flagship institutions.  But even then, in current D3 there are only 100 public schools, so you'd need to keep some current D2ers to drop their scholarship programs to keep them home, otherwise you'd still have a very small D2. 

I only see opting between for conference purposes. But perhaps the mentality of the split should be akin to something like the Minnesota High School League purposes, which realigns its classes each year-- one year you could be A, the next you could be AA, depending upon enrollment.  Conferences stay the same-- just teams are eligible for different playoff systems at the end of the conference season.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 11, 2006, 12:16:09 PM
By the way, Pat, b/c I didn't want to take the honor, could I convince you to make post number 10,000 on the MIAC board?

Your hard work and generous donation to all of D3 sports is much appreciated, and it's only appropriate that you take the post.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on January 11, 2006, 02:07:24 PM
It's essentially the "D4" proposal.  It's been out there a while, but I don't think it has any real support.  It would establish 2 non-scholarship divisions, one with non-traditional seasons, redshirts, etc, the other without those things.  (that's one idae for it)  theother ided for it is for less expensive schools and publics to do into a seperate division.  There are too many competing ideas to make it work.

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 11, 2006, 02:25:13 PM
Wasn't part of D-4 also to eliminate championships and playoffs and just play the season?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 11, 2006, 03:54:18 PM
Great series in ESPN.com regarding boosters and wealthy donors in college athletics.  Here  (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2285500)is a link to Phil Knight (of Nike) and his relationship with the University of Oregon.

Tomorrow ESPN will name the top ten power broker donors in the country.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on January 11, 2006, 04:21:13 PM
smedindy -

There were those who thought that was a good idea.

I wasn't one of them, but some people though that participation was good enough, that competitions and championships were un-academic.

I think that we should also stop keeping score in the games and not keep records either.  And let everyone play the same amount of minutes.  That would make it all nice and fair.

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 11, 2006, 04:24:43 PM

Nice article Johnnie
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 11, 2006, 04:29:38 PM
Quote from: Coach C on January 11, 2006, 04:21:13 PM
smedindy -

... some people thought that participation was good enough, that competitions and championships were un-academic.

C

Well, actually, Middlebury espouses that very outlook -- except for men's and women's ice hockey.  :P

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 11, 2006, 04:39:50 PM

You know Middlebury's motto: It's hard to be a sore loser if you never do it.


That's a tough one to live up to if you compete in every post-season year in and year out.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 11, 2006, 04:48:29 PM
It seems that Middlebury finds national championships when played on ice to be quite "academic." Doubtless it's because of all those skaters with 1500+ SATs. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jim Matson on January 12, 2006, 12:18:33 AM
No new level is really being created as D1-AAA already exists.  So really the mess is in splitting up DIII and dealing with any of the current DII schools that would want to stay DII.  And what about the current non-scholarship DI programs in football?  Do they have to leave DI-AAA?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Flea on January 12, 2006, 01:07:43 AM
Quote from: Hiker Jim on January 12, 2006, 12:18:33 AM
No new level is really being created as D1-AAA already exists.

Could you name some schools that are in Division I-AAA?  What sports offer a Division I-AAA post-season?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 12, 2006, 07:18:04 AM
I-AAA is the name for the D-1 schools that don't offer football, like Gonzaga.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 12, 2006, 09:03:46 AM

I'm pretty sure that's not official.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 12, 2006, 09:08:40 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 12, 2006, 09:03:46 AM

I'm pretty sure that's not official.

Nor do I, though I've seen references to D1-AA non-scholarship football teams as D1-AAA. These, too, are unofficial.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 12, 2006, 09:20:09 AM
It may not be official but I've seen references to it when talking about Gonzaga or Loyola - Take Your Pick.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 12, 2006, 09:29:45 AM
Division I-AAA is official.

Go to the NCAA website and hit a search on Division I-AAA for a perspective of the extent to which it exists.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on January 12, 2006, 10:30:46 AM
LaSalle in PA, Georgetown (DC) are ezxamples of I-AAA football.

It's terrible football, but it exists.

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 12, 2006, 10:42:38 AM

Is that just because they want to have football, but aren't allowed to play at lower levels as a D2 institution?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 12, 2006, 12:55:04 PM
I-AAA does refer to non-football playing D-1 schools.

D-IAA non scholarship schools were D-3 (or D-2) at one point but the NCAA made them move because some athletes were scholarship in other sports and also playing football.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cawcdad on January 12, 2006, 02:00:16 PM
Division I-AA is for football only. D-IAA is for schools that do not give scholorships for football (Pioneer League) or whose facilities and draw are not up to the size (I do not know what that treshold is off hand) demanded of D-I. Sac State, and UC Davis are examples. Although UC Davis is building a larger stadium.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 12, 2006, 03:14:46 PM
I think it's at least 15,000 per game of attendance, though the NCAA hasn't bounced anyone back to D-1AA that I know of, though the MAC and Sun Belt have a lot of teams on the cusp.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 12, 2006, 08:37:33 PM
The attendance figure of 15,000 is correct. 

I know, because Eastern Michigan is perennially on the hot-seat.  They had a mini-scandal this past year when it was revealed that they were GROSSLY inflating attendance figures (as the few people actually there were well aware!) - last year they claimed an average of about 16,000, when the real figure was more like 7,000!  What I found the MOST disgusting is that they hired the baseball team to multi-punch the hand-held attendance counters (mysteriously, the turnstile counters were 'inoperable') - way to teach ethics to your 'student-athletes'!

The former AD (who denies any knowledge of the scheme - try to find anyone in Ypsilanti who believes him!) is now the AD at Case Western (watch out if they suddenly are among the d3 leaders in attendance)!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: downbythebeach on January 13, 2006, 01:05:48 PM
Coach C,

Not a big fan of non scholly football, ey?
Yet you're on a D-3 board.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on January 13, 2006, 03:21:58 PM
Quote from: downbythebeach on January 13, 2006, 01:05:48 PM
Coach C,

Not a big fan of non scholly football, ey?
Yet you're on a D-3 board.

If you have seen LaSalle and Georgetown play football you wouldn't say that.  NJCU could still beat them in football and we haven't had a team in three years.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 13, 2006, 03:28:18 PM
Quote from: downbythebeach on January 13, 2006, 01:05:48 PM
Coach C,

Not a big fan of non scholly football, ey?
Yet you're on a D-3 board.

I suspect C isn't a fan of D3 football masquerading as D1. (Nor, possibly, is he a fan of D1 football played at the D3 level.  ;))

As to D3 football played in D3, I'd bet he's very much a fan.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 13, 2006, 03:30:51 PM
LaSalle lost to a Catholic team that rushed for negative yardage in the game. I'm sure LaSalle, et. al. would still be D-3 in football if allowed. I don't think that rule was aimed at them, per se. (**cough**DAYTON**cough)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 14, 2006, 02:44:27 AM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 13, 2006, 03:28:18 PM(Nor, possibly, is he a fan of D1 football played at the D3 level.  ;))

Oh come on, who does that?   ::)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on January 14, 2006, 08:33:04 AM
downbythebeach -

REALLYYYYYY?????  Gee, in the nine frigging years I have been coming here I always thought it was a cooking website.

Gosh, I had NO IDEA.

C

And it IS terrible football.  Having been involved with D3 programs for some time I will tell you that many many D3 teams can beat these D1AAA programs.

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 14, 2006, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: Coach C on January 14, 2006, 08:33:04 AMREALLYYYYYY?????  Gee, in the nine frigging years I have been coming here I always thought it was a cooking website.

I guess that this would explain why I keep waiting in vain for April's kimchi and spam recipes to appear.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 14, 2006, 02:45:28 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 14, 2006, 02:32:28 PM
Quote from: Coach C on January 14, 2006, 08:33:04 AMREALLYYYYYY?????  Gee, in the nine frigging years I have been coming here I always thought it was a cooking website.

I guess that this would explain why I keep waiting in vain for April's kimchi and spam recipes to appear.

Greg: Kimchi and SPAM together sounds pretty much like a weapon of mass destruction. Does one prepare it in a lead-lined crock-pot while wearing a biohazard suit?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on January 14, 2006, 07:35:51 PM
We experimented with Kimchee and spam on our sub, we had to shoot the result out the torpedo tubes off the coast of the former Soviet Union.  It almost caused an international incident.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 15, 2006, 01:24:59 AM
If it's one of April's recipes, wouldn't it be for kimchi and Spam cookies?  :P
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 15, 2006, 02:11:49 AM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 14, 2006, 02:45:28 PMGreg: Kimchi and SPAM together sounds pretty much like a weapon of mass destruction. Does one prepare it in a lead-lined crock-pot while wearing a biohazard suit?

Well, I guess we'll never know, since Coach C has just informed us that this isn't a cooking website. Why am I always the last to know these things?

Just think of all the hours we've wasted here in vain, Warren. You're going to have to resume your search somewhere else for those ultimate scrapple and fried baloney recipes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on January 15, 2006, 02:23:01 AM
Actually, cooking information would be WAY preferred to re-opening the Indian nicknames discussion.

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 15, 2006, 03:00:23 AM
Agreed.

Besides, I LIKE fried bologna (though I was underwhelmed by scrapple).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on January 15, 2006, 12:12:57 PM
Fried bologna on cheap white bread with a little yellow mustard.  The on-my-own lunch of my puberty.  MMMMMMM!  GoooooooooD!

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 15, 2006, 03:55:57 PM
Quote from: Coach C on January 15, 2006, 02:23:01 AM
Actually, cooking information would be WAY preferred to re-opening the Indian nicknames discussion.

Amen to that. People seemed to be checking their senses of humor at the door when they entered the Indian nicknames discussion. Brings a whole new meaning to the term "tough room".  ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on January 16, 2006, 10:08:09 AM
Greg -

I love a good discussion.  I am a passionate defender of the first amendment.  I think that there are real problems with both racism and political correctness in American society. 

I love talking about those things, especailly in relation to sports.  However, I have NO IDEA what went wrong in that room!!

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on January 16, 2006, 02:05:10 PM
You betchum, Red Ryder. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: janesvilleflash on January 16, 2006, 08:24:54 PM
Just when you think you've heard everything. Fried bologna sandwiches on white bread are NEVER served with mustard. It's ketchup!!!! Mustard is resereved for rye bread.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: JacketsFan on January 16, 2006, 10:05:25 PM
Fried bologna with lettuce. tomato, onion and pickle on a hamburger bun with ketchup AND mustard, chips on the side, also known as a baloney burger.Mmmm-mm!''Okay, I've got a culinary mindbender for you guys. What's a Hawaiian Hamburger?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 16, 2006, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: JacketsFan on January 16, 2006, 10:05:25 PM
What's a Hawaiian Hamburger?

Add a slice of pineapple! :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: JacketsFan on January 16, 2006, 10:33:39 PM
Pretty dang close, Ralphie. Growing up in a Catholic family back when you didn't eat meat on Fridays, a lot of Southern Catholic moms made what we called Hawaiian Hamburgers. A couple slices of pineapple on a hamburger bun slathered with mayo. Add a slice of American Cheese and you had a cheeseburger. Necessity truly is the mother of invention. How ya been, Ralph? Happy New Year to you.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 17, 2006, 01:57:43 AM
It seems that the Future of Division III varies from tasteless to disgusting.   :P
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on January 17, 2006, 09:53:04 AM
Pineapple? Mayo? Cheese?

I have an iron stomach, but just the thought of it had me retching.

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2006, 10:02:04 AM
At the Convention last week, the Legislation to broaden the definition of in-region competition in Proposal #10 was withdrawn.

As I understand that, it would have permitted "vacation/holiday break" competition to count for in-region and was originally sponsored by the CCIW, among others.

Proposal #16 to include strength of schedule as part of the criteria for Pool B and C was also withdrawn.

Does anyone have any information about the nature of the withdrawals?

Other measures that passed included #22 which permits scouting an opponent at an exhibition; #23 and #27 which look like "common-sense" legislation about on-campus meals for recruits and student-athletes; and #28 concerning football teams that schedule a game on the Thursday before Labor Day.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2006, 10:04:40 AM
Quote from: JacketsFan on January 16, 2006, 10:33:39 PM
Pretty dang close, Ralphie. Growing up in a Catholic family back when you didn't eat meat on Fridays, a lot of Southern Catholic moms made what we called Hawaiian Hamburgers. A couple slices of pineapple on a hamburger bun slathered with mayo. Add a slice of American Cheese and you had a cheeseburger. Necessity truly is the mother of invention. How ya been, Ralph? Happy New Year to you.

Glad I am Methodist!  Yeah, my mom would cook her ground meat with a slice of pineapple in the the patty as a diversion back then. :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on January 17, 2006, 10:40:14 AM
I was raised Catholic, we just resorted to Pizza, Mac and Cheese or fish for fridays.  The only meat pineapple went near in our house is Ham.

Then there is the old standbye called the sandwish, you wish you could afford something to put between two slices of bread.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 17, 2006, 10:59:41 AM

I loved the Fridays in Junior High because we got popcorn shrimp.  And while the thought of seafood from a public school cafeteria scares the crap out of me now, it was heaven back then.  I didn't even understand until much later why they didn't grill up the burgers on Friday.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 17, 2006, 04:42:30 PM
All this food talk is making me hungry, especially as the end of my work day nears...

I just caught this  (http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060115/SPORTS0202/601150341/1002/SPORTS) at Siouxsports.com.  Yes, it's D2, but it has MAJOR implications for the landscape in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa regions.  Apparently, UND is studying again whether to go D1-AA, and there is some hint that they'll make the jump.  That, in turn, will force St. Cloud State, UMD and Mankato State (Minnesota's Big D-2 schools) to decide whether to go D1-AA, or join the NSIC or the Missouri D-2 conference. 

The DAC-10 (now 8) is looking at moving from NAIA to NCAA ranks. I think either Jamestown or Mary is already moving D2 and discussions are furthering about the whole conference being D2.  But they are NSIC sized, not NCC sized.

This could cause massive issues with recruiting in Minnesota-- namely, SJU and Concordia have had an influx of transfers from former D2 schools going D1 (thank you, NDSU). 

But on a larger scale, the departure of one of D2's pre-eminent football conferences into the D-1 ranks may bring true heat on D2 to be reexamined.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2006, 06:04:41 PM
I have heard University of Mary.  I had not heard Jamestown.

That, the DAC-10)  has to hurt the NAIA badly.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 17, 2006, 07:30:18 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2006, 06:04:41 PM
I had not heard  of Jamestown.

Ralph:

For information on Jamestown, go to http://www.jc.edu. This venue is located in North Dakota.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2006, 08:50:24 PM
Warren, you misread my post.  I said that "I had not heard Jamestown (moving to D2)".

I "knew of" Jamestown.   ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 17, 2006, 09:27:32 PM
I got what you meant RT..I'd be surprised if you hadn't heard of Jamestown!

Here  (http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050825/SPORTS02/508250324/1002/SPORTS)is the article I was thinking of about Jamestown moving over-- more of an article about the whole DAC-10 moving over.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 17, 2006, 09:28:24 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2006, 08:50:24 PM
Warren, you misread my post.  I said that "I had not heard Jamestown (moving to D2)".

I "knew of" Jamestown.   ;)

Of course - it is a well known suburb of Ypsilanti! ;D

(For those for whom the above is a bit TOO obscure, Jamestown, ND, is about 20 miles from a speck of a ranch/farm town, which was indeed settled by immigrants from MY Ypsi!)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 18, 2006, 02:06:41 AM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on January 17, 2006, 09:27:32 PM
I got what you meant RT..I'd be surprised if you hadn't heard of Jamestown!

I've heard of it as well, as I have an elderly friend who grew up there.

After looking up Jamestown, ND ("home of the World's Largest Buffalo" -- it's a cement statue) on Wikipedia, I've found that for a town of a mere 15,000 people it's turned out a few celebrities: Pop singer Peggy Lee, Western novelist Louis L'Amour, disc jockey Shadoe Stevens, and major league baseball players Travis Hafner and Darin Erstad.

Most of the people in Jamestown are either of German or Norwegian descent. My elderly friend told me that when he was growing up the town had two Lutheran churches, one comprised of German-Americans and the other of Norwegian-Americans. He said that they refused to integrate into one big Lutheran church, because the German-Americans believed that it was OK to drink beer but that women shouldn't be allowed to wear makeup in church, whilst the Norwegian-Americans believed that drinking beer was sinful but that it was permissible for women to wear makeup in church.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 18, 2006, 08:54:20 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2006, 06:04:41 PM
I have heard University of Mary.  I had not heard Jamestown.

That, the DAC-10)  has to hurt the NAIA badly.

Sorry, Ralph. I missed the ellipsis in your post above.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 18, 2006, 08:56:55 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 18, 2006, 02:06:41 AM

Most of the people in Jamestown are either of German or Norwegian descent. My elderly friend told me that when he was growing up the town had two Lutheran churches, one comprised of German-Americans and the other of Norwegian-Americans. He said that they refused to integrate into one big Lutheran church, because the German-Americans believed that it was OK to drink beer but that women shouldn't be allowed to wear makeup in church, whilst the Norwegian-Americans believed that drinking beer was sinful but that it was permissible for women to wear makeup in church.

That's Lutherans for you ... certain things are absolutely verboten until they are obligatory.  ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 18, 2006, 07:02:11 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 18, 2006, 02:06:41 AM
After looking up Jamestown, ND ("home of the World's Largest Buffalo" -- it's a cement statue) on Wikipedia, I've found that for a town of a mere 15,000 people it's turned out a few celebrities: Pop singer Peggy Lee, Western novelist Louis L'Amour, disc jockey Shadoe Stevens, and major league baseball players Travis Hafner and Darin Erstad.

Hafner is only from Jamestown in the sense that he was born in the hospital there, the only hospital in many square miles.  He grew up and continues to live in Sykeston, ND.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 24, 2006, 09:13:09 AM
The NCAA posted the voting results from the convention here (http://www1.ncaa.org/eprise/main/membership/governance/division_III/2006_convention/voting_results.pdf).

For proposal #3 (redshirts) voted down 277-128-1, some notable ayes (reinstatement of redshirting) included UW-W, UWEC, UWSP, McMurry, Linfield, Capitol, Cortland, Rowan, ETBU, RPI, UMHB, HSU, and the ASW Conference representative.

Some notable nays to #3 include SJU, Concordia (MN), MUC, PLU, Trinity (TX), UW-L, UW-P,  Occidental, Redlands, Bridgewater (VA), and the WIAC and NWC conference reps. 

It seems conferences were far more divided on redshirts this time around compared to last, where the entire NWC voted to keep redshirts and the WIAC voted to rid of them.

For proposal #4 (disallowing redshirts from other divisions) defeated 203-199-4, some notable nays (to allow redshirts from other divisions) include MUC, Linfield, PLU, Rowan, Oxy, Cortland, Redlands, UWEC, UWW, Trinity (TX), ETBU, HSU, UMHB, McMurry, and Rowan.

Some notable ayes (to disallow redshirts from other divisions) include SJU and the entire MIAC, Wartburg and the entire IIAC, SNC and the entire MWC, UW-L, UWSP, the WIAC rep, Bridgewater, the OAC rep, Whitworth, Williammette and Wabash.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 24, 2006, 02:38:33 PM
Johnnie, D3 is Texas is entirely different, because of so many talented athletes who get scholarships around the country and then don't get the PT they want.

They come back to Texas, a la Elliott back home to Linfield.

The starting QB's at HPU and McM  and I believe HSU, had experience at higher levels out of state, but wanted to come back home and enjoy playing.  It is like that in multiple sports.

In basketball, Texas has 20 D1's, 10 D's and two more D2's moving from the NAIA-1 in 2006-07.  Oklahoma raids Texas high school recruits all of the time.  IMHO, the redshirt rule was an exclusionary tactic by other parts of the country where there is no or little competition for high school talent like we see in Texas.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 24, 2006, 05:55:12 PM
RT, I was not trying to point fingers at any schools or regions in particular; rather, I was putting several of the schools that have qualified for football playoffs or were interesting to me in my West region focus.  I admit it is completely unscientific!

My first thought was that at least 2 of the top 4 in football this year were advocates of reinstating the redshirt rule-- a sense of the rich getting richer perhaps, especially when supported by some other of football's usual suspects, including UWEC, Linfield, and UMHB.  But that is not necessarily the case as SJU, MUC, PLU, Trinity and Bridgewater voted no to the proposal.  I was surprised at the dissidence within a public school conference (the WIAC) and at a recent NAIA convert private school conference (NWC).  That tells me that it isn't just a public/private issue.

But the inconsistency of that relation breaks down in #4, considering the upper Midwest private schools all voted for (and thus against the recognition of D-1/2 redshirts), and Texas schools were opposite, while the WIAC and NWC again split.  I was not trying to advocate a "right" or "wrong" stance, just do a summary of who (football-wise) went one way or another.

You bring up an interesting point about TX being home to 20 D-1 basketball programs and 12 D-2 programs; but I don't see it as unique to Texas, as Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, ND and SD together have 20 D-1 programs in basketball and currently 10 D-2 programs (add one more for U of Mary from NAIA and potentially 8 more if the DAC moves over) and combined has a population roughly the same as Texas.  So I don't know if it's a state issue so much as a regional issue.  I get your point, though-- MN is home to 5 D-1 hockey programs (with UND being 5 minutes away as number 6) and everybody recruits MN for hockey (BC, BU, CC, Denver, Wisconsin, Mich. Tech., UAA, UAF), so when they don't get the PT at Northern Michigan, they come back and play in the MIAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 24, 2006, 07:16:05 PM
Johnny, a cogent reply.  :)  Sorry that my response was mis-interpreted.  (The absence of inflection and non-verbal communications is one reason that plain email will never supplant face-to-face.  :-\ :) )

The politics behind that vote was interesting.  Was it 1975 old line D3 vs "newbies" and state schools from the NAIA?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: redswarm81 on January 27, 2006, 07:12:55 PM
Quote from: Coach C on January 16, 2006, 10:08:09 AM
Greg -

I love a good discussion.  I am a passionate defender of the first amendment.  I think that there are real problems with both racism and political correctness in American society. 

C

Ahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

You mean for everyone, or just for you?

Ahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

I just stopped by to say something non-controversial and non-thought provoking, just as I always do.  I assume you guys are just as proud as I am of all those "moderate" Muslims in the Palestinian Authority who voted the Terrorist Party into a governing majority in Parliament.  Now maybe we will get to see the Crusaders take on the Fightin' Jihadists!

'Scuse me, I have to go compose some cheers.  The shareef don't like it, . . .
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on January 27, 2006, 08:55:19 PM
redswarm81 -

Are you on medication? Drunk? Just an a$$hole?  It took you 8 days to come up with that response?

The only thing less intelligent than your initial comment, is your analysis of the recent Palestinian elections.

Have a nice weekend.

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 27, 2006, 09:59:41 PM
Aw geez, here goes another room down the RedSwarm Toilet.  >:(
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 27, 2006, 10:34:26 PM
Actually, it's the same room, but back to the old flush...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on January 28, 2006, 08:10:10 AM
Yeah guys,

I am sorry I rose to redswarm81's sophomoric rant.  I'll leave be henceforth.

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 28, 2006, 08:31:47 AM
Maybe Pat should employ his "Webmaster's Tidy-Bowl Option" ....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2006, 03:49:22 PM
Maybe you guys should get back to talking about the D-III issue and not about the troll. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 28, 2006, 04:33:21 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2006, 03:49:22 PM
Maybe you guys should get back to talking about the D-III issue and not about the troll. :)

Consider that we are now properly chastised, scolded, and otherwise heaped upon with contumely ....  :-[
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2006, 06:22:38 PM
Sorry, just waiting for the conversation to return before I do anything further. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 28, 2006, 06:24:46 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 28, 2006, 06:22:38 PM
Sorry, just waiting for the conversation to return before I do anything further. :)

No need at all to be sorry. The "troll" is, indeed, best left ignored ....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2006, 01:03:54 PM
The NCAA hasn't been great about keeping up with posting minutes of committee meetings in the past year or so, but I finally ran across this list:

It was VOTED
"To accept the following applications for Division III membership:
(1)      Briarcliffe College (2007-08);
(2)      Franciscan University of Steubenville (2007-08);
(3)      College of St. Joseph in Vermont (2006-07); and
(4)      St. Joseph's College, New York (2007-08)."

These would be provisional members starting in that year.

Not sure if any others got in before the moratorium was re-established.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2006, 02:55:15 PM
My notes have these classes of schools becoming active in these seasons.

2006-07 -- Spelman GA (GSAC)

2007-08 -- Finlandia MI (IND) , Green Mountain VT (IND) , Mount Mary WI (IND) , and UT-Tyler (ASC-East).

2008-09 -- Crown MN (UMAC) , Keystone PA (NEAC) , UMaine-Presque Isle (IND) , Mount Aloysius PA (AMCC), PSU-Berks LVC (NEAC), Tri-State IN (MIAA), UMinn-Morris (UMAC).

2009-10 -- Bethany Lutheran MN (UMAC), La Sierra CA (IND), Mitchell CT (IND), Northwestern MN (UMAC), Presentation SD (UMAC), SUNY-Purchase (NEAC), Salem NC (IND).

2010-11 -- Point Park PA (IND), Seton Hill PA (IND), College of St Joseph VT (IND),  SUNY-Morrisville (IND).

2011-12 -- Briarcliffe NY,  Franciscan U Steubenville OH, St Joseph's NY, St Vincent PA, Lincoln Christian Seminary and College MO  (SLIAC candidate).

I also have that these schools are in their exploratory year in 2005-06.

U Cincinnatti-Clermont
SUNY-Cobleskill
Doane-NEB
Geneva PA
Lancaster Bible College PA
Lyndon State College (VT)
PSU-Harrisburg
Spaulding KY

Corrections provided by Pat Coleman on 29Jan06 have been made.  (Thanks Pat!  :)).

Other corrections appreciated.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2006, 03:44:41 PM
SUNY-Morrisville belongs in the 2010-11 class and St. Vincent and Lincoln Christian in the 2011-12 class, I believe. Pretty sure they have been slotted.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 29, 2006, 05:03:30 PM
Pat:

Do you think D3 will someday split into two sub-divisions (or D3 and D4)?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 29, 2006, 06:52:19 PM
Ralph (or anyone),

In terms of athletics, do you know if any of these teams are going to be one's to keep an eye on?  I know Tri-State is up to middle-of-the-pack in bball in the MIAA this year, but the others that I know ANYTHING about are about as low as you can go (Green Mountain, Presque Isle, Finlandia).

I confess that with many of these schools, I not only know nothing about their athletics, I've never heard of the school!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2006, 08:39:59 PM
Mr Ypsi, I started logging these changes so we would have an easily accessible record of the changes, with the appropriate references to news releases, e.g., Daily Dose, Notables, etc.

As you suggest, the new additions seem to be for their own reasons.

-- The Tri-State addition solidifies the MIAA, especially in football.
-- In turn, this frees up Wisconsin Lutheran to return to the new LMC/NIIC.  That conference might sponsor football, which would ripple (tsunami ;)) thru the IBFC.
-- The Pres AC will be a big winner if/when they get St Vincent, Geneva and Seton Hill PA.
--  I see some of these additions as consolidating programs in the various geographic areas, to wit the UMAC.
-- Other conferences that seem to be gaining stability are the NEAC, the AMCC and the SLIAC.  (I would rather see a Pool A going to a conference champion, than a bunch of Pool B's that seem to be wandering Bumbledom.)  The NEAC will have several more changes to its membership.  It is a big conference (numerically and geographically) that is seeking an AQ.  Getting the AQ is the key!

-- SUNY-Morrisville may help stablize East Region football.  That would give the SUNYAC as chance to sponsor football if Buffalo State, Cortland State and Brockport State join Morrisville to get a Pool A and seek affiliates.  By 2012, might the SUNYAC and the NJAC soak up the East Region independents and the ACFC into 2 Pool A conferences?  (SUNYAC--Buff, Brock, Cortland, Morrisville, SUNY Maritime, Frostburg and Salisbury?  NJAC--Wesley, TCNJ, WP, Rowan, Montclair, W Conn,  a 7th?)

Otherwise, I think that most stable programs are staying where they are.  We saw big changes when the NWC and ASC moved from NAIA to D3.  One caveat...if the DAC-10 moves en masse to D2, then that will have a big effect  on the NAIA as well.

Just my thoughts.  It will be interesting.  Lots of new Pool B's showing up tho'. :-\
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 29, 2006, 09:25:42 PM
Thanks, Ralph!

Didn't really answer my question, but, then, it was a bad question!  Who can really predict several years into the future (the pick-em boards will tell you we don't do so hot even on THIS year).

I was wondering if any of these schools have a solid tradition in any particular sports and/or if any of them seem to have a real commitment to becoming good in any particular sports.

My most specific curiosity was whether any of them seem likely to be top 50 (or even top 100) basketball schools, but I AM curious about all other sports as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 29, 2006, 09:26:10 PM
I would be surprised if these newbies didn't try to join conferences.

I don't think top 50 hoop schools, but you never know.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 29, 2006, 09:28:20 PM
Just a minor technical correction, RT- With the U. of Mary already leaving the DAC-10 for the NCAA, and Si Tanka University (formerly the University of Huron) dropping athletics (if not closing altogether), it's now just the DAC.

But there is some diversity in programs within the DAC-- I think there will be a substantial push from some members to consider D-3 and cut costs.  Regardless, I fully agree-- stay tuned as such a big move would really cause ripples in D2 and D3 alike, as well as the NAIA.

WT- I personally don't see it occurring without a broader restructuring starting from D-1 on down.  IMHO, I think the push will be from D-1A schools to force some of their fringe members down to D-1AA, which would require D-1 A,AA and AAA to undergo some serious thought.  In turn, the relative smallness and slow growth in D2 compared to the size and growth speed of D3 would be seen as a chance for the NCAA to rebalance things out.  But without something starting at the D1 level, the NC$$ will leave the nonrevenue divisions alone.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2006, 10:18:12 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 29, 2006, 09:25:42 PM
Thanks, Ralph!

Didn't really answer my question, but, then, it was a bad question!  Who can really predict several years into the future (the pick-em boards will tell you we don't do so hot even on THIS year).

I did leave that one open-ended, because absolutely none of those schools, except UT-Tyler, is within a day's drive of Dallas.   :D

I was wondering if any of these schools have a solid tradition in any particular sports and/or if any of them seem to have a real commitment to becoming good in any particular sports.

Doane NE? (Great Plains AC like Neb Wes)   Geneva PA? St Vincent?  They come to mind.  I hate to be pejorative about the quality of any of those schools.  That is why I framed the question in the conference setting.  I think that the UMAC will be a great boon to D3 athletics in the north country.  They may not be MIAC or NWC quality at this time, but if they provide a D3 option, then great.

My most specific curiosity was whether any of them seem likely to be top 50 (or even top 100) basketball schools, but I AM curious about all other sports as well.

I think that very few schools will be Top 100 by 2015.  I do think that the examples that I cited are good examples of tangible contributions that we can see in the National competitions.  LaSierra gives another Pool B in southern California.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 30, 2006, 02:14:42 AM
I think St. Vincent will be a top 100 basketball school but I don't think anyone else adds to the division in the sports we cover.

I don't necessarily see a D-IV situation. Looks like a good part of the next decade will be spent trying to find common ground rather than reasons to split up.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 01, 2006, 05:37:30 PM
 The NCAA attendance figures are out. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVKBMpDlQwCgkWD8qJzU9MblSP1jfWz9AvyA3NDSiPN8RANQz8cc!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUsvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Association-wide/Football%E2%80%99s+popularity+verified+by+attendance+1-30-06+NCAA+News)  SJU was #1 with almost 8,000 ppg, while Ithaca and Linfield were #2 and #3 with a little under 5,000 ppg.  Concordia-Moorhead was #4 with a little over 4,000 ppg.  The MIAC led all conferences with appx 3,000 ppg.

Interesting, though-- D3 was slightly down (-17 ppg at home games, or -27 ppg overall) but D2 was up (+55 ppg at home games and +129 ppg overall).  D1-AA was down and D1-A was up as well.

Any thoughts to any impact this may have?

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 01, 2006, 06:20:01 PM
The downturn in D-III is so small it could almost be explained away by Linfield not having a home game against Lewis & Clark to help bump the average. Or it could be explained by extra scrutiny being given to the attendance counters at Emory & Henry, who annually are accused of overreporting their attendance.

It seems awfully coincidental, for example, that E&H reported its Bridgewater attendance as 1,734, which is 1,250 lower than any other game. Bridgewater fans were leading the charges all season.

Quote from: eh ... just call me 'kid' on October 23, 2005, 11:23:51 AM
Quote from: Llamaguy on October 22, 2005, 10:07:41 PM
[...]
ps. Kid has a little picture to sum up today's game, stay tuned! ;D

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 23, 2005, 01:38:53 AM
Hmm, they must've known the attendance police were coming -- just 1,734 claimed in the box score.

Well, here you go...

I counted 286 fans on the home side (in the bleachers and standing around the field) during the second quarter.  Llama counted just fewer than 100 in the visitor's stands.  We threw in (just for good measure) another 50 who watched the game from their cars ... and another 50 who just tailgated the whole time (by the way, there were probably no more than that many that tailgated from both schools because of the weather).

So that gives us a grand total of 286+100+50+50 = 486 ... and we will be nice and round up to 500.  And actually, since we didn't account for those using the restrooms, at the concession stands, or in campus buildings ... we will throw in another 100 people (an obvious overshoot).

So that brings our (our being Llama and I) EHC-BC game attendance to 600.

So you all tell me (and below are pics of the home and visitor bleachers during the 2nd quarter), where are the extra 1,134 people they are counting?!


(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bridgewaterfootball.com%2Fimages%2Fehcstands1.jpg&hash=781fcb657e6ab311b422e92dd29d02bb9e7c955c)
click here for larger image (http://www.bridgewaterfootball.com/images/ehcstands1.jpg)

(pictorial evidence sucks!)  :D

Point being, I don't put one bit of credence in Division III attendance figures.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2006, 06:26:13 PM
Johnnie, I think that the numbers are within statistical norms.

If we are to see any changes in D3, I think that "drilling" down on the numbers on the southern schools will be a big predictor in any additional growth in D3 football.

Three of the Top 20 attendances belong to "new" programs, #9 CNU, #12 UMHB and #15 LaCollege.

LaCollege had a 4-5 record, so that tells me there is much fan support for D3 football in Louisiana.  Pineville/Alexnadria is away from Baton Rouge and New Orleans, so this is the "biggest" game in town.  If that translates into continuing attendance growth at Huntingdon and good numbers at LaGrange, then we might see other schools in the South adding football.  The other thought that I have about the better numbers is that they usually have a proud tradition and they are the "biggest" game in town, non-urban locales.

Now the denominator of 220+ schools will swallow that incremental change, but I think that I will bode favorably for the continued growth of D3 football, in the South Region at least.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2006, 07:17:14 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2006, 02:55:15 PM2009-10 -- Bethany Lutheran MN (UMAC), La Sierra CA (IND), Mitchell CT (IND), Northwestern WI (UMAC), Presentation SD (UMAC), SUNY-Purchase (NEAC), Salem NC (IND).

The UMAC's Northwestern College isn't in Wisconsin, Ralph. It's in St. Paul, MN.

http://nwc.nwc.edu/

I think that there was a school called Northwestern College in Wisconsin somewhere at one time, but I don't believe it's in existence anymore.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2006, 07:49:27 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2006, 07:17:14 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2006, 02:55:15 PM2009-10 -- Bethany Lutheran MN (UMAC), La Sierra CA (IND), Mitchell CT (IND), Northwestern WI (UMAC), Presentation SD (UMAC), SUNY-Purchase (NEAC), Salem NC (IND).

The UMAC's Northwestern College isn't in Wisconsin, Ralph. It's in St. Paul, MN.

http://nwc.nwc.edu/

I think that there was a school called Northwestern College in Wisconsin somewhere at one time, but I don't believe it's in existence anymore.

Thanks Gregory.  Correction so noted. 

There was a former UMAC member that merged with Martin Luther in 1995..

http://www.umacathletics.com/about/about_formermbrs.htm

http://www.closedcollege.bizland.com/wisconsin.htm
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on February 01, 2006, 09:18:28 PM
Ithaca had three big home games this year that meant something that boosted their attendence. (Cortland, SJF and  Alfred).

And the Cortland game only sold a fixed amount of tickets and none could be bought after that.  I would say a few thousand more would have attended that game if they were allowed to sell on game day.

Is there anywhere else in the country where d3 tickets are limited to a fixed amount for a game?  I am dissapointed that security just isnt good enough to handle crowds so a fixed attendence isnt needed.

Ithaca also started charging $ for certain sports that were free before:
------------------------------------
Ticket Information

Beginning Jan. 1, 2006, admission will be charged for regular-season games in the following Ithaca College sports: baseball, men's basketball, women's basketball, gymnastics, men's lacrosse, women's lacrosse, men's soccer, women's soccer, softball, men's swimming & diving, women's swimming & diving and wrestling.

Ticket prices for those events will be $2 (general admission) and $1 (students). Ithaca College faculty, staff and students and children under five will be admitted free.

Tickets prices for Ithaca football games will remain $4 (adults) and $2 (students and senior citizens), with Ithaca College students, faculty and staff admitted free with ID.

Ticket information about the Cortaca Jug game is available from the host school approximately two months before the date of the game.

Admission is charged for all postseason events (Empire 8, ECAC, NCAA) hosted by Ithaca College and complimentary passes are not accepted. Ticket prices are set by the conference or governing body.

(From Ithaca SI)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2006, 10:10:33 PM
Yeah, that's the one, Ralph. I didn't realize that the now-defunct institution was a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran school. I wonder why it merged with Martin Luther College, which is all the way over in New Ulm, MN, rather than merging with nearby Wisconsin Lutheran College?

Probably just as well that it closed its doors. I don't think that we could handle the confusion of two UMAC schools called Northwestern College.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on February 01, 2006, 10:24:46 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2006, 10:10:33 PM
Yeah, that's the one, Ralph. I didn't realize that the now-defunct institution was a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran school. I wonder why it merged with Martin Luther College, which is all the way over in New Ulm, MN, rather than merging with nearby Wisconsin Lutheran College?

That's a strange one, to be sure. Turf wars? Someone's nose got out of joint? Theological warfare? (The Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, if you can believe it, are far more conservative than their Missouri Synod cousins.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2006, 10:42:50 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on February 01, 2006, 10:24:46 PMThat's a strange one, to be sure. Turf wars? Someone's nose got out of joint? Theological warfare? (The Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, if you can believe it, are far more conservative than their Missouri Synod cousins.)

Yeah, I know. They're much more insular as well, and that insularity might explain some of the possible turf wars. Of course, there's probably a more mundane explanation for merging with an out-of-state school rather than one nearby that we just don't know.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2006, 10:50:57 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on February 01, 2006, 10:24:46 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2006, 10:10:33 PM
Yeah, that's the one, Ralph. I didn't realize that the now-defunct institution was a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran school. I wonder why it merged with Martin Luther College, which is all the way over in New Ulm, MN, rather than merging with nearby Wisconsin Lutheran College?

That's a strange one, to be sure. Turf wars? Someone's nose got out of joint? Theological warfare? (The Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, if you can believe it, are far more conservative than their Missouri Synod cousins.)

What if there were tax consequences for the Wisconsin school to assume the assets/liabilities of another Wisconsin school that would not be the problem for a Minnesota school?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2006, 11:10:44 PM
Tax issues would definitely fit under the rubric of a more mundane explanation than turf wars.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 01, 2006, 11:13:42 PM
That attendance drop is much ado about nothing. Heck, one reason may be that when the Monon Bell game is at DePauw, the capacity is over 3,000 less than it is at Wabash!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on February 05, 2006, 12:44:48 PM
tax issues?  synods?  attendance?

Huh?

What the heck is going on in this room?

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 06, 2006, 08:36:19 AM
Quote from: Coach C on February 05, 2006, 12:44:48 PM
What the heck is going on in this room?


Anything we want!!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on February 06, 2006, 10:29:57 AM
So it seems!

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: E-E-E-E.UNIT on February 08, 2006, 09:29:04 AM
im with coach c on this one... my goodness
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 09:40:18 AM

Well its seems as if we're not talking about anything right now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 08, 2006, 10:33:52 AM
The original impetus of this board was to have a place to discuss the initiatives on which the NCAA voted in January.

The most recent editions of the NCAA News have contained little substantive material that would seem to impact D3.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 11:02:33 AM

Way to ruin our fun, Ralph.

I'm sure they'll get back to making bad decisions soon enough.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 08, 2006, 12:06:46 PM
To get things talking, since the D-3 Financial Aid Report is in the review process, here's the NCAA's blurb (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/contentviewer?IFRAME_EMBEDDED=true&CONTENT_URL=http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_events/press_room/2006/february/20060203_macmurray_infr_rls.html) on MacMurry College tennis program. 

One thing that I don't get as clear is the penalty for awarding more aid to athletes than non-athletes.  Since the NCAA cannot take away scholarships or recruiting privileges, and my assumption that a broad retroactive vacating of all "honors" would be harsh (why should the clean basketball team suffer if another part of the department is not-- I'm not sure if the NCAA can narrow down data to that level), what does the NCAA do to penalize? 

Postseason ban?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 08, 2006, 02:21:38 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 08, 2006, 12:06:46 PM
To get things talking, since the D-3 Financial Aid Report is in the review process, here's the NCAA's blurb (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/contentviewer?IFRAME_EMBEDDED=true&CONTENT_URL=http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_events/press_room/2006/february/20060203_macmurray_infr_rls.html) on MacMurry College tennis program. 

One thing that I don't get as clear is the penalty for awarding more aid to athletes than non-athletes.  Since the NCAA cannot take away scholarships or recruiting privileges, and my assumption that a broad retroactive vacating of all "honors" would be harsh (why should the clean basketball team suffer if another part of the department is not-- I'm not sure if the NCAA can narrow down data to that level), what does the NCAA do to penalize? 

Postseason ban?

Please note that MacMurray College (Vanna, can I buy an "A"?) is in Illinois.

McMurry University is in Texas. ;) :D

Johnnie, if I remember correctly, this case had to do with international tennis scholarship players who were dropped at Scholarship schools and this situation involved getting them to come to MacMurray.  The financial aid may have components of various aid packages that are available to international students.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 08, 2006, 02:24:48 PM
No worries, RT-- I wasn't implicating McMurry.  The article notes that MacMurry is in the midwest, so I figured out the distinction pretty quickly!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 08, 2006, 02:26:53 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 08, 2006, 02:24:48 PM
No worries, RT-- I wasn't implicating McMurry.  The article notes that MacMurry is in the midwest, so I figured out the distinction pretty quickly!

You just have to be careful about the rest of the lurkers.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 08, 2006, 02:27:48 PM
 :D :D :D :D :D ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 09, 2006, 06:56:20 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 08, 2006, 02:21:38 PMPlease note that MacMurray College (Vanna, can I buy an "A"?) is in Illinois.

You'd better buy an extra 'a' from Vanna while you're at it, Ralph, as Johnnie keeps forgetting the one between the 'r' and the 'y'.  ;)

I wonder if the late actor who starred in Double Indemnity and The Absent-Minded Professor and the TV series My Three Sons had as much trouble with his surname as Ralph's alma mater seems to have with the general public.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2006, 12:03:59 PM
Most recent press release concerning expansion issues in D-III.

Membership Committee offers options for managing Division III expansion  (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVKBMpDlQwCgkWD8qJzU9MblSP1jfWz9AvyA3NDSiPN8RANQz8cc!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUsvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Division+III/Membership+Committee+offers+options+for+managing+Division+III+expansion+-+2-13-06+NCAA+News)

This actually looks pretty reasonable.

I especially like the provision suggesting that the schools get up to the 5(6)-sport and 3-season requirements and submitting the plan of action before entering the process.  Then the NCAA might shorten the Provisional process.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2006, 02:37:40 PM
I like limiting the class as well, especially if they shorten the provisional process.  Two in every year sounds about right.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 17, 2006, 06:38:48 AM
I don't necessarily like the idea of limiting the classes. I think that any school that wants to get into D3, is willing to subscribe to the division's mission statement and code, and meets the offered-sports and seasonal requirements, ought to be able to join. But if D3 makes schools comply with the division's parameters before they enter the provisional period, as proposed in the second option (the one endorsed by Ralph), the class-size issue would take care of itself. And the commitment to D3 standards would've already been met before the school entered the provisional-period pipeline.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2006, 08:58:09 AM

That's kind of what I was referring to as well.  If the transitional period is shortened becuase they have to meet requirments first, we will only have one or two teams entering each year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jake1kpr on February 27, 2006, 10:58:58 PM
I'm jumping into the fray pretty late here, but I'm curious if anyone has any idea how the movement of Hood and Villa Julie and Hood to the CAC is going to impact the AWCC, and if there is yet a firm "new" league that Goucher and Catholic will be joining in 2007, as the CAC website claims?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2006, 09:15:11 AM

The "new" conference doesn't have an official name as yet, however we are referring to it as the "Interstate 8."

Members will be: Juniata, Moravian, Susquehanna, Catholic, Goucher, Kings Point, Stevens and Drew.

They start play in 2007-2008 in all sports, but football.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on February 28, 2006, 11:38:04 AM
I still say it should be called the Insidious Eight.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 28, 2006, 11:41:51 AM
What about the AAPNC?

The "Adjectives and Proper Nouns Conference."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: BVHawk on March 02, 2006, 11:23:25 AM
The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades! 8)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2006, 02:07:55 PM
Jake1kpr, Pat Coleman has done a good job of following this conference.  With a more pro-active leadership, the prospects for the AWCC might be better.

http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3328.msg481998#msg481998

http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3328.msg482024#msg482024
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jake1kpr on March 06, 2006, 09:27:14 PM
I thought Juniata was DII?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jake1kpr on March 06, 2006, 10:06:49 PM
BTW, Ralph...thanks...I've gotten a good bit of info from that post/stream.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 07, 2006, 08:48:39 AM

I'm pretty sure Juniata is D3.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on March 07, 2006, 05:55:13 PM
I'm sure they are DIII.  But their MVB team is #1 ranked DIII and just about beat 11th ranked (DI) Ohio St.

I'm trying to figure out who you would be confusing them with.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on March 07, 2006, 11:05:46 PM
they are d3.... their women's volleyball team has a huge rivalry with Wash U.'s volleyball team.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 08, 2006, 09:07:00 AM

I've been racking my brain and I can't think of a d2 school you might confuse them with.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on March 08, 2006, 09:18:26 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 08, 2006, 09:07:00 AM

I've been racking my brain and I can't think of a d2 school you might confuse them with.

Nor can I, unless there's a D2 Juanita ....  ::) I believe Juniata has been D3 ever since there has been a D3.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 08, 2006, 09:40:54 AM

The only d2 school that even starts with a J is Johnson C Smith University.  There are a couple of state schools in J-towns, but nothing to be confused with Juniata.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jmccloskey on March 13, 2006, 12:48:53 AM
With all the comings and goings in the Atlantic/Mid-Atlantic region, we're gonna need a who's who just to keep up with it all.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 17, 2006, 11:47:44 AM
The March 2006  Division III Newsletter (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/d3_newsletter/d3newsletter.pdf) has been released.

There is good stuff involving the Championships Committee report discussing:

---Strength of Schedule
---Opponents' Opponents Average' Winning Percentage (OOAWP)
---Out of Region Contests
---Games during Institutional Breaks

It mentions the recommendaton to the Management Council for consideration at the April meeting  to include any contest with a school in the membership region (Bylaw 4.12) rather than sports' evaluation region as the definition of "in-region".  (See Page 3.)

The attachment to the newsletter includes the Division III AQ and Conference Realignment Guide.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 17, 2006, 11:57:04 AM

Having a region from Maine to Maryland without New York and Pennsylvania seems silly.  Even if they did, like a 200 mile radius from the boundaries of your region, that might make more sense.  I don't know.  It's good that they're looking in that direction though.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on March 17, 2006, 12:12:13 PM
I sounds like they would expand the regions to the usual North, South, East and West regions for competition purposes but would also maintain the 200 mile rule for bordering regions.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 17, 2006, 12:14:57 PM

Yeah, but in the NE, it would be wierd.  A trip to Scranton from Boston is not in region, but a trip to DC would be?  If they were going to go in that direction, they would have to do something to remedy that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on March 17, 2006, 12:33:02 PM
It is a little bizarre but I think they did it to break the high number of schools that strech from the Mason Dixon line north in D-3.  Taking PA and NY out of that mix probably evens out the numbers for the other three regions.  Without looking it up I believe that the majority of teams in D-III come from the geographical Mid Atlantic and Northeast states and the Midwestern/Great Lakes states which makes for the slightly strange nature of the North, South, East and West regions.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on March 17, 2006, 12:34:36 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 17, 2006, 12:14:57 PM

Yeah, but in the NE, it would be wierd.  A trip to Scranton from Boston is not in region, but a trip to DC would be?  If they were going to go in that direction, they would have to do something to remedy that.

It means schools like Gordon could play a school like Catholic or Rowan or John Hopkins and it is in region.  To me it is a step in a better direction.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 17, 2006, 12:35:07 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on March 17, 2006, 12:34:36 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 17, 2006, 12:14:57 PM

Yeah, but in the NE, it would be wierd.  A trip to Scranton from Boston is not in region, but a trip to DC would be?  If they were going to go in that direction, they would have to do something to remedy that.

It means schools like Gordon could play a school like Catholic or Rowan or John Hopkins and it is in region.  To me it is a step in a better direction.

Yeah, but it still doesn't guarantee that they would.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 17, 2006, 02:11:00 PM
Whether they do or not play those teams, it gets us closer to a a better QOWI, because Gordon is not in a vacuum.

In turn, we get closer to the OOAWP!  It is on the table!

My optimistic self tells me that they want to get it right for all sports!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 17, 2006, 02:44:12 PM
My suggestion to the committee is to allow the 200-mile radius to apply to the membership regions and Sport Specific Evaluation Regions as well in all sports!

My second recommendation is to adopt the 200-mile radius venue rule.   A tournament would be consider in-region for all schools traveling a venue within the 200 mile radius.  All members in the region or within the 200-mile radius of the venue are considered in-region.

In this example, Elmhurst (Geographic Region 4) hosts a tourney with McMurry TX (Geographic Region 4) and Hope (Geographic Region 3).  Hope is within 200 miles of the Elmhurst venue.  In this scenario, McMurry travels to "in-region" Elmhurst and gets to qualify the game against Hope, which traveled less that 200 miles to the venue, as "in-region".


Here are the regions as designated in By-Law 4.12.1.1

The geographical regions are as follows:  (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/97)

(a) Region 1 - Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont; (Revised: 1/12/99)

(b) Region 2 - New York, Pennsylvania,; (Revised: 1/12/99)

(c) Region 3 - Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia; and (Revised: 1/12/99)

(d) Region 4 - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

From the database perpsective, this is quiet simple Boolean math.

The In-region games can be validated by:

a)  Sports Evaluation Region (the 8 we have now) OR,
b)  Geographic Membership Region (the 4 listed above) OR,
c)   200-mile radius OR,
d)  200-mile radius of the venue OR
e)  In-conference as we have now in the UAA or the NEAC or the SCAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 17, 2006, 03:02:57 PM

Sounds good.  When can we vote you onto the committee, Ralph?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on March 28, 2006, 01:08:41 PM
I saw this a few weeks ago in the NCAA News (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/newsdetail?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Division+III/Financial+aid+reporting+seeks+education+with+compliance+-+3-13-06+NCAA+News&TITLE=Financial+aid+reporting+seeks+education+with+compliance+-+3-13-06+NCAA+News) and forgot to post it.  My bad.  Interesting, however- I'll post some highlights:

(A)bout 86 percent of 430 institutions demonstrated statistically that the institutional gift aid they awarded to newly enrolled student-athletes during the 2004-05 academic year was substantially comparable to aid granted to the general student body. In other words, only 57 institutions' aid to student-athletes exceeded the aid awarded to the general student body by at least 4 percent, when comparing students with similar need...

Analyzed further, the data indicate that about 70 percent of Division III institutions awarded less aid on average to student-athletes than they awarded to other students....

An institution posting a variance of -3.15 percent — the Division III median — awarded an average of $432 less in aid to student-athletes than it awarded to other students. However, Division III schools' variances expressed in dollar terms range from negative $2,192, at the 10th percentile mark, to positive $847, at the 90th percentile mark, with the maximum variance reported at $2,878 (student-athletes received that much more on average than nonathletes at an institution at the top end of the range)....

Citing examples, Murphy said the committee reviewed cases where student-athletes tended to live on campus and attend classes during the day — factors that might justify more financial aid — while nonathletes tended to be commuter or night-class students...Student-athletes also may receive more aid than other students for a reason that everyone agrees is positive — because they rank among the best students on campus....

Names of institutions whose cases are referred to the enforcement staff will not be reported publicly, and findings of secondary violations typically are not publicly reported — unless a public release of information is made part of an institution's penalty in accordance with NCAA Bylaws 19 and 32...

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncaa.org%2Fwps%2Fwcm%2Fresources%2Fimage%2F468b6040e4d2da69%2F3spotchart2.jpg&hash=2f1d503dcbb7bc5b582b299455a0ecaccf2afc29)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 28, 2006, 01:10:40 PM

That's pretty cool.  I'm glad extra aid to athletes is the exception and not the norm.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: diehardfan on March 28, 2006, 05:58:55 PM
Thank you for posting that! It is indeed very interesting.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 14, 2006, 06:14:37 PM
Future of D-III (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=175)--increased supervision of the nature of student aid.

Let's keep an eye on the Management Committee and their late July meeting.

The distribution pattern that we saw below looked "awfully Gaussian" to me.

On the flip side, is there any call for advocacy of Student-Athletes who do receive much less aid than they might be entitled to?  How about this as a cause for the National SAAC to study?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 17, 2006, 09:51:19 AM

That's an important point, Ralph.  Have we looked into schools that are too skittish about aid to athletes than their athletes are actually offered less aid than they could get in they were not playing sports?  I know that in one of the reports on this study, there was some mention of how many schools give athletes less money, but I do not recall if there were many (or any) at the magical -4% mark.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 17, 2006, 12:46:01 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on March 28, 2006, 01:08:41 PM
I saw this a few weeks ago in the NCAA News (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/newsdetail?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Division+III/Financial+aid+reporting+seeks+education+with+compliance+-+3-13-06+NCAA+News&TITLE=Financial+aid+reporting+seeks+education+with+compliance+-+3-13-06+NCAA+News) and forgot to post it.  My bad.  Interesting, however- I'll post some highlights:

(A)bout 86 percent of 430 institutions demonstrated statistically that the institutional gift aid they awarded to newly enrolled student-athletes during the 2004-05 academic year was substantially comparable to aid granted to the general student body. In other words, only 57 institutions' aid to student-athletes exceeded the aid awarded to the general student body by at least 4 percent, when comparing students with similar need...

Analyzed further, the data indicate that about 70 percent of Division III institutions awarded less aid on average to student-athletes than they awarded to other students....

An institution posting a variance of -3.15 percent — the Division III median — awarded an average of $432 less in aid to student-athletes than it awarded to other students. However, Division III schools' variances expressed in dollar terms range from negative $2,192, at the 10th percentile mark, to positive $847, at the 90th percentile mark, with the maximum variance reported at $2,878 (student-athletes received that much more on average than nonathletes at an institution at the top end of the range)....

Citing examples, Murphy said the committee reviewed cases where student-athletes tended to live on campus and attend classes during the day — factors that might justify more financial aid — while nonathletes tended to be commuter or night-class students...Student-athletes also may receive more aid than other students for a reason that everyone agrees is positive — because they rank among the best students on campus....

Names of institutions whose cases are referred to the enforcement staff will not be reported publicly, and findings of secondary violations typically are not publicly reported — unless a public release of information is made part of an institution's penalty in accordance with NCAA Bylaws 19 and 32...

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncaa.org%2Fwps%2Fwcm%2Fresources%2Fimage%2F468b6040e4d2da69%2F3spotchart2.jpg&hash=2f1d503dcbb7bc5b582b299455a0ecaccf2afc29)



Hoops fan, this is the article to which I referred.  Thanks to Johnnie esq.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 17, 2006, 12:51:58 PM

Yeah, that's what I was talking about as well.  It looks like a lot of athletes are getting the shaft around d3, unless of course there are a disproportionate amount of schools still giving most of their scholarship money based on merit.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on April 17, 2006, 05:49:39 PM
The left tail of that histogram IS rather extended (though seemingly only about 10% of schools are at -20% of beyond).  I do wonder if schools are SO concerned about being accused of giving athletic scholarships that they bend too far the other way.

Since it is only 40-45 of the 427 schools, perhaps there are idiosyncratic reasons at those particular schools (the athletes tend to come from disproportionately wealthy families, the athletes are less academically talented at those particular schools, etc.), but those at the extreme left end of the tail are quite striking.

The NCAA seems only concerned with those schools on the right tail; there should be attention paid on the other side too.  D3 athletes should not be receiving extra benefits, but they should also not be receiving the shaft due to school fears of the NCAA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 17, 2006, 07:20:31 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 17, 2006, 05:49:39 PM
the athletes are less academically talented at those particular schools

I expect that's a possibility.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on April 17, 2006, 07:46:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 17, 2006, 07:20:31 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 17, 2006, 05:49:39 PM
the athletes are less academically talented at those particular schools

I expect that's a possibility.

I'm sure that explains some of the schools - but all of them?  Are there some schools where fear of NCAA accusations of favoring athletes means that athletes are actually getting the shaft?

And phrased that way, the answer is undoubtedly yes - I guess the better question would be is this enough schools that there is a problem worth investigating?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 17, 2006, 07:59:07 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 17, 2006, 07:46:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 17, 2006, 07:20:31 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 17, 2006, 05:49:39 PM
the athletes are less academically talented at those particular schools

I expect that's a possibility.

I'm sure that explains some of the schools - but all of them?  Are there some schools where fear of NCAA accusations of favoring athletes means that athletes are actually getting the shaft?

And phrased that way, the answer is undoubtedly yes - I guess the better question would be is this enough schools that there is a problem worth investigating?

I see the advocacy issue (the group that will "champion" the issue) as the SAAC.

Who knows...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 18, 2006, 09:17:14 AM

How much can the SAAC really do?  Especially in d3.  Maybe it was the exception rather than the norm, but those positions changed pretty frequently in the schools in New England.  I didn't see too many student-athletes who had the time to be truly involved.  Is it more powerful on a national level?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 18, 2006, 10:20:18 AM
Hoops Fan, I racking my brain to remember the recent issue in which the SAAC was said to have a recent considerable influence. :-\

The Presidents heard the SAAC's opinion and did not follow the recommendation coming from the management council, if I remember correctly. ??? :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 18, 2006, 10:37:21 AM

I just know it was more of a novelty thing at most schools I have contact with.  The AD figures out who will take it seriously, gets them selected as reps and they go to meetings and talk about stuff.  It certainly seems like there is potential for a lot of influence there, but maybe it's not being fully utilized.  It seems like the SAAC reps change all the time.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 19, 2006, 07:43:43 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 18, 2006, 10:20:18 AM
Hoops Fan, I racking my brain to remember the recent issue in which the SAAC was said to have a recent considerable influence. :-\

The Presidents heard the SAAC's opinion and did not follow the recommendation coming from the management council, if I remember correctly. ??? :)

I believe that was the football spring practice proposal.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on April 20, 2006, 03:18:51 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 18, 2006, 10:20:18 AM
Hoops Fan, I racking my brain to remember the recent issue in which the SAAC was said to have a recent considerable influence. :-\

The Presidents heard the SAAC's opinion and did not follow the recommendation coming from the management council, if I remember correctly. ??? :)

I wouldn't expect the Soccer Academy Alliance Canada (http://www.academysoccer.ca/) to wield much power within the NCAA.  Or did you mean the Shelby American Automobile Club (http://www.saac.com/)?  Perhaps the Austrian Snow and Avalanche Awareness Camps (http://www.saac.at/flash/index.php)?

Maybe it is significant that I had to Google "SAAC" (http://www.google.com/search?q=saac&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) to learn that there exists such a thing as the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/membership_svcs/saac/d3/index.html).  Then again, maybe it just shows what a clueless boob I am.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 20, 2006, 04:16:34 PM

I wouldn't have known either except one day when I was a student I ran into a friend who just returned from a meeting and told me about it.  If not for that one chance encounter, I could have gone four years of school, attending every home game of pretty much every sport and a bunch of away games as well without ever knowing of its existence.

That was why I was hoping it wielded more power on a national level than it did locally in New England.
Title: Re: Geographic Regions Approved
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 27, 2006, 05:39:38 PM
Management Council (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/myportal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVKBMpDlQwCgkWD8qJzU9MblSP1jfWz9AvyA3NDSiPN8RANQz8cc!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUsvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Division+III/Council+adopts+method+to+expand+in-region+competition+-+4-24-06+NCAA+News) approves the four Geographic Regions (https://goomer.ncaa.org/wdbctx/lsdbi/LSDBi.LSDBiPackage.DisplayBylaw?p_Division=3&p_IndexName=ManualIndex&p_PkValue=8542&p_TextTerms=ThisIsADummyPhraseThatWillNotBeDuplicated&p_TitleTerms=ThisIsADummyPhraseThatWillNotBeDuplicated&p_BylawNum=4.12.1.1&p_Text=3_4_12_1_1.HTML&p_ViewAdopted=Adopted&p_BylawType=0&p_ProposedDate=&p_AdoptedDate=&p_EffectiveDate=01-JAN-2000&p_HeadFoot=1&p_CallCount=1) as defined in Division III By-law 4.12.1.1 as a criterion for In-Region Games.  This takes effect on August 1, 2006.

The council will also change opponent's opponents' record to opponents' opponents' winning percentage in 2007-08.

The council said the logistics of the Holiday Rule were too complex to administer.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 28, 2006, 12:55:12 AM
From By-law 4.12.1.1

The geographical regions are as follows:  (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/97)

(a) Region 1 - Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont; (Revised: 1/12/99)

(b) Region 2 - New York, Pennsylvania,; (Revised: 1/12/99)

(c) Region 3 - Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia; and (Revised: 1/12/99)

(d) Region 4 - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming. (//http://(a)%20Region%201%20-%20Connecticut,%20Delaware,%20District%20of%20Columbia,%20Maine,%20Maryland,%20Massachusetts,%20New%20Hampshire,%20New%20Jersey,%20Rhode%20Island,%20Vermont;%20(Revised:%201/12/99)%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3E(b)%20Region%202%20-%20New%20York,%20Pennsylvania,;%20(Revised:%201/12/99)%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3E(c)%20Region%203%20-%20Alabama,%20Arkansas,%20Florida,%20Georgia,%20Indiana,%20Kentucky,%20Louisiana,%20Michigan,%20Mississippi,%20North%20Carolina,%20Ohio,%20Puerto%20Rico,%20South%20Carolina,%20Tennessee,%20Virginia,%20West%20Virginia;%20and%20(Revised:%201/12/99)%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3E(d)%20Region%204%20-%20Alaska,%20Arizona,%20California,%20Colorado,%20Hawaii,%20Idaho,%20Illinois,%20Iowa,%20Kansas,%20Minnesota,%20Missouri,%20Montana,%20Nebraska,%20Nevada,%20New%20Mexico,%20North%20Dakota,%20Oklahoma,%20Oregon,%20South%20Dakota,%20Texas,%20Utah,%20Washington,%20Wisconsin,%20Wyoming.)

Linfield-HSU and WIAC vs Texas are now "in-region"! ;)

Next year, IWU vs. UPS is in-region!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 28, 2006, 01:02:30 AM
Notice that the old definition of regions does not go away. There are three ways a game can be defined as in-region:

1) Schools are in the same region as defined by that sport's committee.
2) Schools are in the same Region (1, 2, 3, 4) as defined by the NCAA.
3) Schools are 200 miles apart or less, as determined by MS Streets and Trips 2004 on shortest-possible-distance setting.

Any of the three can qualify.

We'll adjust the football schedules appropriately.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 28, 2006, 08:53:51 AM

That's a big deal for both the major sports covered here.  I'm glad the NCAA has taken some steps towards alleviating problems.  It's still an issue with PA-NY not being in region for most NE teams, but you can't make everything perfect.  I like it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 28, 2006, 09:01:12 AM
That is why I think that the "200-mile venue rule" is the next amendment that we need.

Having New Jersey and Maryland in Region #1 would give some flexibiity.

Stevens, McDaniel (Western Maryland) and Catholic or Gallaudet (District of Columbia) among others could be the host venue where some Region #2 schools could meet.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 28, 2006, 09:41:14 AM

It's true.  I guess Upstate New York will still be isolated, but there's not too much we can do about that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 28, 2006, 04:32:04 PM
Not as much as it used to be. All of upstate New York is now in-region with with CUNY and Skyline schools in NYC and on Long Island. Parts of that area are still within 200 miles of the cluster of schools in Western Mass, plus Connecticut schools that are in the NE.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 28, 2006, 05:08:36 PM

Yeah, but the 200 mile thing has always been in effect and not too many of the Upstate schools venture over to Western Mass.  I guess they can take trips to Pennsylvania now, but I just don't see it happening.  It wasn't happening before, and Utica made out just fine this year without venturing too far.  However, it is a good step in the right direction, even if it doesn't make things better for every school.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on April 28, 2006, 06:06:15 PM
While the new in-region option is a step forward (and I hope, for example, that it will increase the number of games between the CCIW and the MWC and WIAC), it does present some curious anomalies.  In region 1, unless you go by sea, I defy you to go from the northern to the southern parts of the region without going out of region!  In region three, if a MIAA team schedules an in-region Arkansas team, the only reasonable routes require going through out-of-region Illinois and Missouri first.  This past season, IWU's games against UT-Dallas and Puget Sound would have been in-region, but there is no MIAA team that would be in-region!

I say scrap the whole attempt to define 'in-region' and count all d3 games as in-region (I'd prefer that they even scrap the in-region selection precess, but I'm not going to be totally utopian here!) - due to cost and class-time considerations, I guarantee that most schools' schedules would not change a whit.  Sure, it is hypothetically possible that a rich school might become a powerhouse by promising recruits a trip to Hawaii every Christmas, but that could already be the case if a school was willing to give up a couple of in-region games (and such a school would presumably not be attracted to d3 anyway - in the larger world, I'm not sure that 'powerhouse' and 'd3' are even spoken in the same language)!

Especially since cost is such a key factor for most d3 programs, even if you don't trust schools to do the right thing for the right reasons, can't we trust them to mostly schedule locally out of sheer necessity?  And then IWU could meet the spirit of the rules by going to Holland (MI) rather than Tacoma for an in-region game!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 28, 2006, 08:39:06 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 28, 2006, 06:06:15 PM
While the new in-region option is a step forward (and I hope, for example, that it will increase the number of games between the CCIW and the MWC and WIAC), it does present some curious anomalies.  In region 1, unless you go by sea, I defy you to go from the northern to the southern parts of the region without going out of region!  In region three, if a MIAA team schedules an in-region Arkansas team, the only reasonable routes require going through out-of-region Illinois and Missouri first.  This past season, IWU's games against UT-Dallas and Puget Sound would have been in-region, but there is no MIAA team that would be in-region!

So what? It's more than it was before. Isn't it possible to be happy with something?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on April 28, 2006, 09:27:05 PM
Pat,

I said it's a step forward - I'm happy, I'm just not elated! ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 01, 2006, 09:03:57 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 28, 2006, 09:27:05 PM
Pat,

I said it's a step forward - I'm happy, I'm just not elated! ;D

Well you should be elated.  Now.  Do it.  Be elated.  I'm not kidding.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on May 01, 2006, 09:12:20 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on May 01, 2006, 09:03:57 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 28, 2006, 09:27:05 PM
Pat,

I said it's a step forward - I'm happy, I'm just not elated! ;D

Well you should be elated.  Now.  Do it.  Be elated.  I'm not kidding.

He's only going to be doing it in cyberspace rather than the real world, so he'll be e-lated instead.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 01, 2006, 12:09:09 PM
Oof.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on May 01, 2006, 12:14:16 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on May 01, 2006, 09:12:20 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on May 01, 2006, 09:03:57 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 28, 2006, 09:27:05 PM
Pat,

I said it's a step forward - I'm happy, I'm just not elated! ;D

Well you should be elated.  Now.  Do it.  Be elated.  I'm not kidding.

He's only going to be doing it in cyberspace rather than the real world, so he'll be e-lated instead.

Actually, Greg, you've got it backwards.  I'm not e-lated, but in the real world I just submitted winter term grades, and now face 4 months of vacation!! 8)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 01, 2006, 01:08:41 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on May 01, 2006, 12:14:16 PM
Actually, Greg, you've got it backwards.  I'm not e-lated, but in the real world I just submitted winter term grades, and now face 4 months of vacation!! 8)

What's up with college professors getting the summer off.  Shoot, they should only get paid enough to last them 8 months and have to deliver pizzas or paint houses for the summer like high school teachers.

Education just isn't worth that much!!

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 01, 2006, 01:11:17 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 01, 2006, 12:09:09 PM
Oof.

That's two "oofs" in one day, Pat.  Not that this one isn't totally deserved, but maybe you should cut down on the stress a little.  Take a breather.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on May 01, 2006, 11:46:47 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on May 01, 2006, 01:08:41 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on May 01, 2006, 12:14:16 PM
Actually, Greg, you've got it backwards.  I'm not e-lated, but in the real world I just submitted winter term grades, and now face 4 months of vacation!! 8)

What's up with college professors getting the summer off.  Shoot, they should only get paid enough to last them 8 months and have to deliver pizzas or paint houses for the summer like high school teachers.

Education just isn't worth that much!!



Hoops,

If it makes you feel better, I also receive no pay for the next four months - a more accurate description would be that I am unemployed (though ineligible for unemployment compensation by Michigan rules, since I have assurance of a job again in September), but I prefer 'on vacation'!  ::)

Fortunately, I am a better investor than a d3 hoops picker (the 90s were 'bery, bery gud to me') - I could retire today, but I enjoy my job too much to do so.  I've been fortunate to always have a decent department head, but I'm in that blessed position of being able to tell him to go f*** himself if I ever encounter trouble! ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 02, 2006, 08:56:24 AM

Wow, that totally backfired.  I was trying to make some misguided point about the state of education in this country, but now I'm lost.  Not even I remember what I was getting at.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on May 02, 2006, 09:43:31 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 28, 2006, 01:02:30 AM
Notice that the old definition of regions does not go away. There are three ways a game can be defined as in-region:

1) Schools are in the same region as defined by that sport's committee.
2) Schools are in the same Region (1, 2, 3, 4) as defined by the NCAA.
3) Schools are 200 miles apart or less, as determined by MS Streets and Trips 2004 on shortest-possible-distance setting.

Any of the three can qualify.

We'll adjust the football schedules appropriately.

Isn't there still a 4th way...

4) Schools are in the same conference.

So a basketball game between WashU. and NYU is still counted as in-region, even though it doesn't qualify under the first three formulae.

Right? ???
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 02, 2006, 09:54:09 PM
Yes, David.  That does apply to the multi-region conferences. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 02, 2006, 11:09:25 PM
Good point, thanks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: diehardfan on May 04, 2006, 07:33:31 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on May 01, 2006, 09:03:57 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on April 28, 2006, 09:27:05 PM
Pat, I said it's a step forward - I'm happy, I'm just not elated! ;D
Well you should be elated.  Now.  Do it.  Be elated.  I'm not kidding.

LMAO  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

:D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: diehardfan on May 04, 2006, 07:35:40 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on May 02, 2006, 09:43:31 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 28, 2006, 01:02:30 AM
Notice that the old definition of regions does not go away. There are three ways a game can be defined as in-region:

1) Schools are in the same region as defined by that sport's committee.
2) Schools are in the same Region (1, 2, 3, 4) as defined by the NCAA.
3) Schools are 200 miles apart or less, as determined by MS Streets and Trips 2004 on shortest-possible-distance setting.

Any of the three can qualify.

We'll adjust the football schedules appropriately.

Isn't there still a 4th way...

4) Schools are in the same conference.

So a basketball game between WashU. and NYU is still counted as in-region, even though it doesn't qualify under the first three formulae.

Right? ???


:D Is David a lawyer, or is he a lawyer?  ;)

I know, the MIAA and the CCIW could just make themselves east and west versions of the same conference... then the games would count, right?  ??? :D

On the other hand, they would have to change their conference names.... a... LOT.  :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on May 05, 2006, 01:13:06 AM
Real lawyers never say

Quote from: David Collinge on May 02, 2006, 09:43:31 PM

Right? ???


They say

Quote from: David Collinge as a REAL lawyer on May 02, 2006, 09:43:31 PM

According to the plain language of the law, the inescapable conclusion is that conference games are counted as if they were regional games.  Mr. Coleman was grossly negligent and clearly abusing his discretion when he failed to include this narrow but absolutely pivotal exception to the regional criteria.  Because of Mr. Coleman's standing and reputation in the D3 sports community, my clients were forced to doubt that the schedules that they had gone to great expense and hardship to create would now not have the anticipated number of regional games, thus casting their playoff chances into serious jeopardy.  This doubt led to severe mental distress in my clients, manifested by hair loss, ulceration, bleeding gums, and the loss of sexual function, damages for which my clients now demand relief. >:(


:D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 05, 2006, 09:05:05 AM

Well done DC and I am glad I could make you laugh, April.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on May 05, 2006, 11:47:08 PM
I, as a brother of the bar, noted the conference game exception (inclusion?)  But I thought it was under the "as defined by that sport's committee" provision.  Is it not?

I still find NCAA's reliance on regions when it suits them and ignoring them when it doesn't to be inconsistent at best and contradictory at worst.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jdean on May 06, 2006, 08:39:56 PM
What an interesting typo: inconsistent at best and contradictory at wost. I'm sure the bar intended nothing deragatory about the Women's Study programs in the Univs. across the USA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on May 17, 2006, 09:33:37 AM
Looks like Birmingham-Southern is trying to decide about moving from DI to DIII. Don't know if they would consider adding football.

http://www.al.com/sports/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/sports/1147858236179060.xml&coll=2

http://www.al.com/sports/birminghamnews/kscarbinsky.ssf?/base/sports/1147857844179060.xml&coll=2

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 17, 2006, 09:34:37 AM

There's been a blog entry about this for a couple days.  They have quite the profile for d3; it may be a really good fit for moving up.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on May 17, 2006, 09:55:06 AM
Looks as if David Pollick and the BSC trustees have stirred things up down there ....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 17, 2006, 10:32:23 AM
Quote from: Hawks88 on May 17, 2006, 09:33:37 AM
Looks like Birmingham-Southern is trying to decide about moving from DI to DIII. Don't know if they would consider adding football.

http://www.al.com/sports/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/sports/1147858236179060.xml&coll=2
Quote from: Hoops Fan on May 17, 2006, 09:34:37 AM

There's been a blog entry about this for a couple days. They have quite the profile for d3; it may be a really good fit for moving up.
I am not particularly impressed with Mr. Kevin Scarbinsky's comprehension of or his scholarship of the nuances of the First Amendment.  He is free to print whatever he wishes.  However, an employee who is employed by an institution, serves at the pleasure of the institution and has no apparent capacity or authority to expound on the decision is not compelled to give information.  That is not a fair remark to make about those individuals or the professionalism that they should demonstrate in their jobs.

If Mr Scarbinsky had a D3 education, then we might want to investigate his granting institution for academic competence! ;) :) :D

D1 is tough.  A couple of years ago, SMU in Dallas gave up its most successful program (in terms of national championships, Men's Track & Field) due to budget constraints.


Here is the blog. (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=186)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 17, 2006, 01:15:59 PM

Man that "First amendment" blow was way out of line, not to mention wrong and totally opposed to the journalistic integrity that he did well to maintain throughout the rest of the piece.

I hope there will be a retraction in the future.  I doubt even the BSC student newspaper would publish a "news" article with that much opinion in it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 17, 2006, 01:35:00 PM
Mike Perrin's news article (http://www.al.com/sports/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/sports/1147858236179060.xml&coll=2) does a very good job of outlining th parameters of the story, who votes, how the decision it will be made, the factors considered.

Thru the miracles of the internet and the pervasive access to all types of information, I think that the question that the board's facing is what I outlined on the blog.

IMHO, it is a no-brainer.

Liberty University has 10,000 students.  UNC-Asheville can dip into the state's coffers, especially if a politically powerful governor wants to build that campus.  Winthrop and Coastal Carolina are as geographically isolated as anything in the SCAC.  BSC seems to be the strongest academic campus in the Big South.  We are talking bus rides to SCAC East Division members, not plane flights and connections to Lynchburg VA or Myrtle Beach (Conway) SC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on May 17, 2006, 02:16:51 PM
Quote from: Kevin Scarbinsky, Birmingham NewsDoesn't Birmingham-Southern teach the Bill of Rights?

:D :D :D

Whenever someone attempts to correct spelling or grammar in a post in here, they invariably make a spelling or grammar mistake of their own.  I guess this is the journalistic equivalent of this tendency.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 18, 2006, 09:09:58 AM
Birmingham News' Mike Perrin (http://www.al.com/sports/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/sports/1147944113152100.xml&coll=2&thispage=3) covered yesterday's rally at B-SC.

Another good job of journalism.  Note the references to the SCAC and to the University of Chicago and Emory.

The article also contains a really good ad for a Gretchen Wilson/Trace Adkins redneck Revolution Tour concert on May 27, 2006 at the Verizon Center. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 18, 2006, 09:30:08 AM
Birmingham News' Thomas Spencer's (http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1147944078152100.xml&coll=2) article on the factors that the BSC Board is considering.  IMHO, Mr Spence covers the history and the issues very well.  (I wonder if he reads the blogs and message boards of D3Hoops.com.  ;) )

Note the athletic budget overruns by a possible 300%-500% ( which is just a guess from the numbers given in the article) over the last 7 years.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 18, 2006, 09:55:39 AM
Yeah, I think this site might have put him on to a couple of points from that second page.  It's nice to be a part of some journalists secret weapon.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 19, 2006, 11:37:58 AM

Condolences on the front page story.  Hopefully the appeal to the executive committee will go well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 21, 2006, 01:54:49 PM
Kevin Scarbinsky (http://www.al.com/sports/birminghamnews/kscarbinsky.ssf?/base/sports/1148203556219580.xml&coll=2&thispage=1) asks some very impugning questions in his column today about BSC's evaluation to move to D3.

The answers to these questions were becoming apparent as the revenue from the Athletic Fund raisers was not reaching the levels from the "good years" at the end of President Neal Berte's era.   The large, apparently one-time gifts from the Richard Scrushy's with HealthSouth money, were not being replaced from other sources in the BSC community, a community so small that all the living exes would only fill up the "cheap seats" in Bryant-Denny Stadium in Tuscaloosa.

The AD at the President's Cabinet meeting was aware of the budget juggling that the administration was doing to keep the university afloat.  He knew where a lot of that red ink was flowing.

The fact that the board, the adminstration and the key individuals involved in the decision making process conducted this investigation out of the media spotlight is a testimony to their professionalism.  Yes, my curiosity does want to know who else is on the short list of "SCAC Wannabe's".  We know that Colorado College and Austin College are no longer on that list.

As for family, putting bread on the table is part of family.  Dipping into the endowment is like "eating the seed corn".  Treating a student-athlete with integrity may mean quickly coming to a decison that will allow him/her to transfer to another school, D1, D2 or NAIA, where he/she may continue an athletic career different from what BSC will be.  It will mean honoring the coaches contract and helping that coach go where s/he may wish.

We covered many of the particluars in the blog. (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=186#comments)

I wish BSC a speedy and successful transition to the next phase.  IMHO, the SCAC (or the GSAC) would be a great place to land.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 22, 2006, 12:29:41 PM

After the recent blog, the GSAC seems like a very solid fit for BSC, if not some of the more eastern ASC teams.  It will all depend on how serious those GSAC squads are about getting to AQ status for men's sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: formerd3db on May 22, 2006, 11:26:43 PM
Ralph:

Since the "nickname" section is blocked out, I'm posting this here.  Anyway, it looks like the NCAA pulled their usual "hypocrit act" once again with the McMurray decision today.  Their nickname is a generic term and in no way whatsoever can be interpreted as offensive.  I don't always agree with the NCAA, on the other hand, I support many of their policies.  However, they have a tendency to install some that make no sense at all quite frequently.  They'll do as they please.  Then again, oh, sorry for my complaining - we shoud be glad we have a DIII format for regulation and post-season play anyway. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 22, 2006, 11:37:29 PM
Thanks d3db.  Pat has created a blog (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/?p=188) on which I have been posting the "McMurry" side of the story.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 23, 2006, 08:34:37 AM
More BSC stuff (http://www.al.com/sports/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/sports/1148376146273610.xml&coll=2) from Mike Perrin, who has done a very good job of outlining the process from D1 to D3.  The BSC board decides on Friday.

He also answers one of the questions that arose on the BSC Blog. (http://www.al.com/sports/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/sports/1148376146273610.xml&coll=2)

The answer is New York University, Utica (NY) College and Catholic University of America.  Please check the blog to find the question.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on May 26, 2006, 02:25:10 PM
Looks like it's official, BSC to DIII. No real details here. Just that the vote went through this morning.

http://www.al.com/birminghamnews/breaking/index.ssf?/mtlogs/bama_bhamnews_break/archives/2006_05.html#145180
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 26, 2006, 07:21:00 PM
Details went up this afternoon on the front page of both our sites.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 26, 2006, 07:32:14 PM
Quote from: David Pollick
D3: Did you consider any other classification for Birmingham-Southern?
DP: No. We had no interest in looking at Division II. We're looking at that which complements our academic profile and we believe that amateur athletics is where institutions ought to be finding themselves.

D3: Are you saying D-I doesn't qualify as amateur athletics?
DP: You have to begin with the notion that you're paying people to compete in athletics. They're getting (a scholarship) because they're an athlete. By definition when you're paying someone money you're moving into a professional role.

I'm glad a real college president feels the same way I do.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on May 26, 2006, 07:47:56 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on May 26, 2006, 07:32:14 PM
Quote from: David Pollick
D3: Did you consider any other classification for Birmingham-Southern?
DP: No. We had no interest in looking at Division II. We're looking at that which complements our academic profile and we believe that amateur athletics is where institutions ought to be finding themselves.

D3: Are you saying D-I doesn't qualify as amateur athletics?
DP: You have to begin with the notion that you're paying people to compete in athletics. They're getting (a scholarship) because they're an athlete. By definition when you're paying someone money you're moving into a professional role.
I'm glad a real college president feels the same way I do.

Yes, but bear in mind that even in D3, athletes often are, in essence, paid to play by means of generous financial aid packages. (See what is the case at Haverford, one of the truly academically elite D3 venues. In many ways, this institution goes after outstanding athletes just as energetically as do the Wideners, Rowans, and Mary-Hardin Baylors.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on May 26, 2006, 08:04:40 PM
But, at least supposedly (and apparently usually in fact), they are not paid any more so than any other student in similar circumstances is paid.

Someone posted the results of a survey on this issue a few weeks (months?) back which suggested that, if anything, fear of NCAA sanctions may mean that many colleges are giving athletes LESS than they are entitled to (alas, I can't locate that thread, though I would guess it is here in the general dIII issues board somewhere).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 26, 2006, 09:00:14 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on May 26, 2006, 08:04:40 PM
But, at least supposedly (and apparently usually in fact), they are not paid any more so than any other student in similar circumstances is paid.

Someone posted the results of a survey on this issue a few weeks (months?) back which suggested that, if anything, fear of NCAA sanctions may mean that many colleges are giving athletes LESS than they are entitled to (alas, I can't locate that thread, though I would guess it is here in the general dIII issues board somewhere).

Mr Ypsi, you are correct to remember that string which was started by johnnie esq in his post

http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.340
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 26, 2006, 09:15:52 PM
Warren:

What happens if that student-athlete decides to stop playing sports? :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 26, 2006, 09:26:52 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 26, 2006, 09:15:52 PM
Warren:

What happens if that student-athlete decides to stop playing sports? :)

That's when I think the school has done its job.  I'm not saying no one should be playing sports, but that the ability to give up something that has been such a large part of your life up to this point in favor of something that will be a large part of your life in the future is the sort of thing college should be teaching.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on May 26, 2006, 09:53:09 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 26, 2006, 09:15:52 PM
Warren:

What happens if that student-athlete decides to stop playing sports? :)

In that case, the financial aid arrangements continue; he/she is then being "paid" (merely?) to be a good student. That's the joy of D3.  ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 27, 2006, 01:40:57 AM
That's my point exactly. That's why it's not the same as D-I. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on May 27, 2006, 09:54:57 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 27, 2006, 01:40:57 AM
That's my point exactly. That's why it's not the same as D-I. :)

Guess I was pretty good at restating the obvious, huh?  :-[
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on May 30, 2006, 10:05:32 AM
But does the financial aid if fact continue, or could it be that when an athlete at a D-III school stops playing the next academic year their financial aid status changes and they get less aid?  Has this happened? I don't know for sure but the cynic in me thinks that this is a very strong possibility at some schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 30, 2006, 10:28:47 AM

I'm not sure there status is allowed to change, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that it does at some schools.

If they are really being compliant, it shouldn't matter whether the athlete stops playing or not.  Even the schools that give those "leadership" or "activity" scholarships to athletes justify them based on their high school extra-curriculars.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 30, 2006, 10:36:27 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on May 30, 2006, 10:28:47 AM

I'm not sure there status is allowed to change, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that it does at some schools.

If they are really being compliant, it shouldn't matter whether the athlete stops playing or not.  Even the schools that give those "leadership" or "activity" scholarships to athletes justify them based on their high school extra-curriculars.

I agree with HoopsFan.  I am sure that the Leadership Scholarships are among the first that are considered in any statistical treatment, 33% athletes in the student body, 33% composition of the leadership scholarships and continued followup on the "Leadership Scholarship Renewals and Retention"  thruout their academic course.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on May 30, 2006, 12:04:47 PM
That is why I asked the question, my financial aid status was reviewed every year.  I did not have scholarships but I did have grants and other types of aid that were reviewable.  At NJCU I know that several departments scholarships were reviewable year by year.  This is the type of aid I was wondering about.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Joe-Man on June 03, 2006, 07:55:49 PM
Since we're talking about the future, I think that Calvin will do alot better if they get Matt Veltema. He's actually my friend's older brother, and I think once he's trained up a bit more, he could lead Calvin to the NCAA Tournament... and maybe even win!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jdean on June 03, 2006, 08:56:07 PM
dateline 5-30-07.
Among rulings released by the Supreme Court this morning was the controversial case involving the attempt by the NCAA to ban the use of Indian nicknames and logos by member schools. In a unanimous ruling, the court said "not only are these nicknames and logos offensive to the Tribes that they mock, they violate the Tribe's right to privacy." In a ruling that will create chaos and unrest for schools at all levels, Judge Thomas went on to say "The court also finds that from this point forward nicknames and logos may only be selected from an approved list of vegetables, fruits and body parts."
The ACLU was quick to applaud the ruling. Lead Attorney Howard Stern said "We will be filing a suit tomorrow requesting all churches, schools, universities, hospitals, any entity that has a religious name attached to it, be ordered to delete any religious attachment from their name." Mr Stern went on to say "the atheist and agnostic citizens of this country also have a right to privacy. They are confronted with these names on every street corner, newspaper, TV, radio and on the internet. Its time these institutions learn how much damage their names are doing to the majority of this country."
Mr Stern said they will be seeking $600 trillion dollars in damages unless every offending name is changed to vanilla, hooters or library. He said if they are successful with that case they will then seek to reduce air pollution by requiring sermons to be given in Braille.
The Pope was not available for comment. Pat Robertson said he will be advising his followers to team up with foreign terrorists and the Nation of Islam to declare a jihad on the ACLU and all attorneys.
The White House will provide its view "when its had an opportunity to study the ruling." Sen Kennedy said he is preparing a bill to outlaw all thought, study, speech or practice of religion. "Its nothing but a brainwashing scheme to extort money from the weak", he said from a bar stool at the Neighborhood Inn.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 05, 2006, 09:00:01 AM

Opposing the ACLU in this matter will be lawyers from the ACLU... it should be quite a battle.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 09, 2006, 09:31:04 AM

BSC into the SCAC already.  You have to imagine this was basically a done deal before BSC would venture into the unknown, so to speak.  They must have had extensive contact with the SCAC while considering the move, right?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on June 09, 2006, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 09, 2006, 09:31:04 AM

BSC into the SCAC already.  You have to imagine this was basically a done deal before BSC would venture into the unknown, so to speak.  They must have had extensive contact with the SCAC while considering the move, right?

From what I've heard, BSC had had talks with the SCAC people going back several months.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 09, 2006, 01:59:16 PM
Yes, the Birmingham news coverage stated as much. And the Birmingham columnists complained about it. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on June 09, 2006, 02:31:42 PM
With 9 football playing schools in the SCAC, I wonder how much more difficult it will make Huntingdon's scheduling. With only two open dates each, it seems like it would be alot harder for so many of them to fit us in. What's the chances of that GSAC-USA South merger happening soon to keep this from being a problem?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 09, 2006, 08:48:49 PM
Hawks, the SCAC board is talking about the possibility of playing a 6-game conference schedule.  That leaves 4 non-conference games to fill from the likes of Huntingdon, LaGrange, Wash StL, Texas teams, etc.

I think that Huntingdon will have the chance to build a strong "Pool B" schedule.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on June 10, 2006, 12:06:23 PM
That sounds better. So assuming we get BSC on our schedule, and we keep the five SCAC members we currently have on it, we could end up playing as many SCAC conference games as the actual conference members. Weird.
HC vs. BSC was a big baseball rivalry for us when we were in the same NAIA conference in the 80's. I am looking forward to getting this rivalry started again.  Plus, that's one less plane ride or long bus ride our guys will have to make.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 10, 2006, 12:46:57 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on June 10, 2006, 12:06:23 PM
That sounds better. So assuming we get BSC on our schedule, and we keep the five SCAC members we currently have on it, we could end up playing as many SCAC conference games as the actual conference members. Weird.
HC vs. BSC was a big baseball rivalry for us when we were in the same NAIA conference in the 80's. I am looking forward to getting this rivalry started again.  Plus, that's one less plane ride or long bus ride our guys will have to make.
Hawks, Huntingdon is trying to make the football playoffs thru Pool B.  I think that you can craft a good schedule to earn a Pool B bid.  BSC and Millsaps need games and you are relatively close to Sewanee and Rhodes.  Draw a circumference on the map of those SCAC schools and find 4 opponents.  HC and LaGrange are inside that circumference.  You are right about having 5-6 SCAC opponents opn your schedule.

By 2007 the Presidents AC is going to Pool A, (Wash & Jeff/Waynesburg).

In 2008 the Northwest Conference goes to Pool A (Linfield/Willamette/PLU).

I think that your main competition will be the ACFC schools, and they need games, too.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 13, 2006, 09:49:26 AM
To keep discussion going about these reclassifications, it appears there is much occurring at the DII level.  Specifically, the University of North Dakota will announce by July 1 their intention (yes or no) to pursue D-1 membership.  UND, which already has a successful D-1 hockey program, would bring all its sports up to the D-1 level in the footsteps of its in-state rival North Dakota State University and its neighbor South Dakota State U.  The UND athletic director has publicly stated "not an if, but a when we go D-1", and told other conference schools to prepare for life without UND.

This has major implications for DII.  All of NDSU, SDSU, and UND were/are members of the NCC, which has been a powerhouse DII conference in all the revenue sports.  With the loss of these three members (and before them, U of Northern Colorado to D-1 and Morningside to NAIA), the NCC is down to 7 schools. 

However, the University of South Dakota is considering moving to D-1 if UND does, making the NCC down to five and leaving the remaining NCC in a problematic spot, below the minimum number of schools for a conference and allowing U Nebraska-Omaha to leave to a nearer geographical conference (the remaining schools are Minnesota-Duluth, St. Cloud State, Mankato State, and Augustana (Sioux Falls, SD)). 

Three of these four have D-1 hockey programs; but are probably not financially or alumni-relations prepared to make the move all-way to D-1.  They could join with another conference, but that won't work either, since they are either geographically distant or have more scholarships than the NSIC (which is traditionally much weaker and have far less interest in their programs, Winona State excepting).  My personal guess is that UMD, SCSU, and will try to go D-1, and Augustana may consider NAIA, the NSIC, or even D-3.

I have no idea whether any of these schools will make a move to D-3; however, I think it will alarm the DII contingent that an entire conference was torn apart by the economics that are DII athletics, which leads to further problems with the Division.  I don't want to be misunderstood and have someone call me on "UND leaving will lead to the demise of D-2", but I hope it will lead to a serious study of NCAA classification and resources between D-2 and D-3.

Here is the Grand Forks Herald Article (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/sports/14790921.htm);  Here is a SC Times Article (http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060611/SPORTS/106110007/1002) about the situation.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 13, 2006, 10:28:30 AM
Thanks for the update, Johnnie.

I have always thought that D2 was a sort of "no-man's land".

In Texas we have 2 state schools moving from NAIA to D2, Texas A&M International in Laredo, TX and UT-Permian Basin in Odessa (http://www.heartlandsports.org/news.shtml#newsitemEEuAVFFlVVviaTzLmn).  These are non-football D-2's and will join the Heartland Conference (http://heartlandsports.org/index.shtml),  Newman in Wichita Kansas is leaving the NAIA to join the Heartland as well.

Do you have any opinions on Montana State--Billings and a more northern option?

We in the ASC tried to add Texas Wesleyan University in Fort Worth in 2001-02 as they left the Heartland Conference, but they moved on to the NAIA Red River AC.

The "football-playing D2 conference" in this part of the country is the Lone Star Conference.

The middle is the area in intercollegiate athletics that does not have a clear vision, IMHO.  D-1 and D-3 do have a definite vision, and NAIA does, but they don't have March Madness to function as the big sugar daddy.

One option that I can see for D2 is to cut its provisional period.  The downside that might need to be addressed is that some NAIA schools might put their"nose under the tent" into D2 and then move from there.

However, a D2 moving from D3 to D2 could probably do it in 2 years.

The Red River AC (http://www.redriverconference.com/) is in a strange situation.  They have lost 2 state schools this year, UT-PB and TAMUI.  Their current composition includes 6 HBUC's (Huston-Tillotson, Texas College, Wiley College, Paul Quinn College, Jarvis Christian College and Langston OK, all of which are on or east of IH-35), Houston Baptist, Texas Wesleyan, Southwestern Assemblies of God in Waxahachie south of Dallas, two non-basketball playing schools, College of the Southwest (CSW.edu) in Hobbs NM and Northwood University in the Dallas suburb of Cedar Hill, and football-playing Bacone College in Muskogee OK.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 13, 2006, 12:54:09 PM
And not all is harmonious in D2.

This report (http://www.thecharlottepost.com/06_01_sports2.html) on the NCAA D2 regional reorganization and  Bonitta Best's commentary (http://www.thecharlottepost.com/sports2.html) from the Charlotte Post lead one to surmise that the brunt of the effort falls on the backs of the Central IAA and the Southern IAA, two conferences of HBUC members.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on June 15, 2006, 03:13:21 PM
Looks like these guys didn't waste any time getting the heck out of dodge, huh?
   
BSC pulls plug on men's basketball, baseball
Birmingham-Southern College will announce later today it will not field a men's basketball or baseball team for next season

http://www.al.com/birminghamnews/breaking/index.ssf?/mtlogs/bama_bhamnews_break/archives/2006_06.html#151737

You will have to scroll down the page a bit to see the article.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 15, 2006, 04:05:20 PM

Didn't BSC have a really good basketball team this year?  I can't blame the guys for bolting.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 15, 2006, 04:11:24 PM
Hawks, I think that the more accurate interpretation is that their D1 athletes are finding homes at other D1 programs.

If those athletes are happy with their new homes, then that is good.

For the athletic program that was hemorrhaging $5M per year, this allows it to save some money.  It appears that the coaches have found new jobs.

I wish the best for BSC.

Thanks for the hyperlink, Hawks88!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on June 15, 2006, 06:18:42 PM
A question that just occurred to me - when a scholarship school moves to d3, what happens to the players who DON'T transfer?  Seems unfair to strip them of their scholarships, yet unfair to the competition if they retain them.

Anyone know?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 15, 2006, 06:21:39 PM
Their scholarships are phased out as part of the provisional period.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on June 15, 2006, 10:31:37 PM
And looks like BSC has found their football coach. Former Alabama player Joey Jones, who has been head coach at Mountain Brook High School in Birmingham for the last 10 years.

http://www.al.com/birminghamnews/breaking/index.ssf?/mtlogs/bama_bhamnews_break/archives/2006_06.html#151803

And, again, you will have ot scroll down to see the article.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: WLU78 on June 16, 2006, 11:02:12 AM
There is discussion on other boards as to whether Coach Joey Jones ever obtained an undergraduate diploma of any kind.  Obviously it has not hindered his career.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 16, 2006, 11:32:18 AM
Quote from: WLU78 on June 16, 2006, 11:02:12 AM
There is discussion on other boards as to whether Coach Joey Jones ever obtained an undergraduate diploma of any kind.  Obviously it has not hindered his career.

The problem with this post is that a search of D3sports message boards has no other references to Joey Jones.

Can you elaborate on which boards those comments are being made about Coach Joey Jones?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: WLU78 on June 20, 2006, 07:37:09 PM
The Samford Bulldog board mentions it.  They are both private colleges in Birmingham and I think they played each other in some sports.

Here is the link to the thread http://www.samfordbulldogs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3655

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 20, 2006, 08:25:41 PM
Quote from: WLU78 on June 20, 2006, 07:37:09 PM
The Samford Bulldog board mentions it.  They are both private colleges in Birmingham and I think they played each other in some sports.

Here is the link to the thread http://www.samfordbulldogs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3655

The Samford University board does not say that he failed to get his Baccalaureate degree.

In Texas, many successful high school head football coaches have earned their Masters on the way to their Administrative Job after football.

Samford is a D1AA school.  One wonders how long it wants to be the only private school in the Ohio Valley Conference.  You almost get the impression that they think that BSC pulled off the coup of the year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 21, 2006, 09:32:27 AM
Update to my last post about D-2 developments based upon a new SC Times article (http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060621/SPORTS/106210033/1002):

It appears that University of North Dakota is headed D-1.

There are discussions in their former conference (the NCC) about a merger with the NSIC, who may also be losing a member-- University of Minnesota Crookston. 

UMC is formerly a 2-year school that is re-evaluating its athletic classification.  Given that it is approximately the same size as UM-Morris, it is possible that UMC will be looking to enter D-3, as there will likely be administrative pressure to remain consistent with Morris and the other UMN programs in the NCAA ranks.  The DAC (NAIA) has apparently approached UMC about rejoining its conference, but given that Crookston is already in the NCAA ranks, and schools are leaving the DAC for the NCAA already, look for that to be an issue in those discussion.

Will the entire DAC leave NAIA for the NCAA?  That has been the topic of discussions in those circles already.  And if so, do they go D-3 or D-2?  Smallish schools would lean toward D-3, but some of them give scholarships so perhaps D-2.

Developing...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 21, 2006, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on June 21, 2006, 09:32:27 AM
Update to my last post about D-2 developments based upon a new SC Times article (http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060621/SPORTS/106210033/1002):

It appears that University of North Dakota is headed D-1.

There are discussions in their former conference (the NCC) about a merger with the NSIC, who may also be losing a member-- University of Minnesota Crookston. 

UMC is formerly a 2-year school that is re-evaluating its athletic classification.  Given that it is approximately the same size as UM-Morris, it is possible that UMC will be looking to enter D-3, as there will likely be administrative pressure to remain consistent with Morris and the other UMN programs in the NCAA ranks.  The DAC (NAIA) has apparently approached UMC about rejoining its conference, but given that Crookston is already in the NCAA ranks, and schools are leaving the DAC for the NCAA already, look for that to be an issue in those discussion.

Will the entire DAC leave NAIA for the NCAA?  That has been the topic of discussions in those circles already.  And if so, do they go D-3 or D-2?  Smallish schools would lean toward D-3, but some of them give scholarships so perhaps D-2.

Developing...

Thanks Johnnie.

Have you heard any timelines on those issues, especially UM-Crookston?  DAC?  :)

At least the UMAC is shaping up for UM-Crookston to evaluate.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 21, 2006, 11:10:24 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 21, 2006, 09:50:24 AM

Thanks Johnnie.

Have you heard any timelines on those issues, especially UM-Crookston?  DAC?  :)

At least the UMAC is shaping up for UM-Crookston to evaluate.

No timelines yet, but my guess is that by the end of summer this whole issue will be forced into a resolve.  I have to believe the DAC is very interested in D-3, but only if D3 will let them enter as a group NWC-style, which I'm not sure will be allowed, given the NCAA's current approach of a lottery plus 3 gaining full membership per year.  I don't think the DAC will want the scholarship costs of D-2, or being forced to play the bigger NCC schools-- though a formerly domininant member (U of Mary, Bismark, ND) just joined the NSIC.

The article also notes that St. Cloud State and U of South Dakota are entertaining a D-1 move too.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 21, 2006, 11:17:43 AM
Johnnie, what is the quality of the DAC schools?  USNews Rankings? Who would you consider to be D3 "peers" of the DAC schools?  Probably not the NESCAC,  ;), but what about other conferences?  IIAC? NWC?  NAthCon?  CCIW? MIAC?

You are allowed some provinciality! :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 21, 2006, 09:22:34 PM
UMAC?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 22, 2006, 08:56:38 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 21, 2006, 09:22:34 PM
UMAC?

That's worth some karma.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 03, 2006, 07:41:53 PM
Johnnie Esq called our attention to these finanacial aid numbers (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.330)  earlier in the year.  A large number of schools give student-athletes far less aid than the average student.  This unique form for discrimination is not addressed by the most recent news report from the NCAA.  I would love to read a discussion or an interview by Pat Coleman or a NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) member of senior NCAA D3 administrators about this discrepancy inthe awarding of financial aid.  Are some student-athletes not getting the help that they are eligible to receive?

NCAA financial aid compliance, July 2006 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Division+III/%27Triggers%27+broaden+target+in+financial+aid+compliance+effort+-+7-3-06+NCAA+News)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on July 10, 2006, 09:19:15 AM
This is from todays NY Times, you need to register to read the story.  It is several pages long so I did not copy and paste.  It is regarding schools that are adding football to attract male students.

Adding Football  (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/education/10football.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=login)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on July 10, 2006, 10:21:15 AM
'stalker:

One of the best quotes in this article, to paraphrase: We get the football players to come, and then we "trick" them into getting an education.  :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 10, 2006, 10:42:24 AM
The article is interesting in terms of what social challenges these colleges face when adding football, but it doesn't seem to touch on the base level of why getting men into their colleges is so important: nationally, the rate of males attending colleges is decreasing and it is expected that their numbers will drop too.  So a further decrease in the already low number of males could be devastating to some of these schools.

That's why schools such as St. Mary's of Minnesota, whose last football team lost to Gagliardi in his first year at SJU (1953) are adding football, as not increasing their male enrollment could mean a real struggle for survival.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 10, 2006, 01:58:44 PM
Quote from: knightstalker on July 10, 2006, 09:19:15 AM
This is from todays NY Times, you need to register to read the story.  It is several pages long so I did not copy and paste.  It is regarding schools that are adding football to attract male students.

Plus that would be a violation of the NYT's copyright. You've been here long enough to know that but I'll blame the painkillers. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 10, 2006, 01:59:53 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on July 10, 2006, 10:42:24 AM
That's why schools such as St. Mary's of Minnesota, whose last football team lost to Gagliardi in his first year at SJU (1953) are adding football, as not increasing their male enrollment could mean a real struggle for survival.

St. Mary's has not committed to adding football yet. A decision is expected at the school's September board of trustees meeting.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 10, 2006, 03:01:14 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 10, 2006, 01:59:53 PM
St. Mary's has not committed to adding football yet. A decision is expected at the school's September board of trustees meeting.

You're absolutely right PC. I jumped the gun on that one and assumed the conclusion (see what I think of the issue).  SMUMN has not yet announced they are adding football.

I strongly believe they will be.  But I've been wrong before and I could be wrong on this one too.

My bad.  {egg on face icon goes here}
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 10, 2006, 03:18:18 PM
Oh, I believe you'll be right eventually too. Just wanted to pointout the formality that it has not happened just yet.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 10, 2006, 03:54:28 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 03, 2006, 07:41:53 PM
Johnnie Esq called our attention to these finanacial aid numbers (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.330)  earlier in the year.  A large number of schools give student-athletes far less aid than the average student.  This unique form for discrimination is not addressed by the most recent news report from the NCAA.  I would love to read a discussion or an interview by Pat Coleman or a NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) member of senior NCAA D3 administrators about this discrepancy inthe awarding of financial aid.  Are some student-athletes not getting the help that they are eligible to receive?

NCAA financial aid compliance, July 2006 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Division+III/%27Triggers%27+broaden+target+in+financial+aid+compliance+effort+-+7-3-06+NCAA+News)

This is an interesting change.  The NCAA seemed pretty happy with how the initial project went.  They MUST have seen something in some schools that seemed a bit out of whack for this change to be done in this way.  They are adding the following four triggers:

n A wide difference (statistically, two standard deviations from the Division III mean) between student-athletes and nonathletes in the percentage of each group's financial need that is covered with institutional gift aid.

n A wide difference (also, two standard deviations) in the proportion of student-athletes in a group of new students at an institution and the proportion of institutional gift aid awarded to student-athletes in that group.

Bylaw 15.4.1-(d) states that "the percentage of the total dollar value of institutionally administered grants awarded to student-athletes shall be closely equivalent to the percentage of student-athletes within the student body."

n A wide difference (again, two standard deviations) between student-athletes in specific sports and nonathletes in the percentage of each group's financial need that is covered with institutional gift aid.


That this will add approximately 50% more schools to their list of review says something about the process to date.  I find the last one to be most interesting-- In other words, if SJU is giving benefits to its football players but noone else, this trigger will find it out.

The third one should be interesting as well for schools with big adult-ed or night programs.  In theory, if you have a big night-school where nobody receives financial aid, but your football team is all day-schoolers and 60% are on aid, this should bring this into further examination.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 10, 2006, 04:04:04 PM
One more on this topic for today: 
From the NCAA news, same issue as RT identifies above:

Admissions decisions sometimes tie athletics to awards. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVKBMpDlQwCgkWD8qJzU9MblSP1jfWz9AvyA3NDSiPN8RANQz8cc!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUsvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Division+III/Admissions+decisions+sometimes+tie+athletics+to+awards+-+7-3-06+NCAA+News)

"The bylaw is pretty clear," he added. "There is no restriction on using athletics ability or participation as a criterion for determining whether a student should be admitted, but that evaluation must not be used in the awarding of financial aid."

The biggest surprise for the committee was that institutions readily revealed in justifications submitted to the committee that they included athletics among other criteria in determining merit awards — indicating they simply were unaware of NCAA prohibitions against doing so.

"We saw schools who actually had it in their written (rating) policies — they had a check list," Shilkret said."


Secondarily:
Panel grapples with reclassification, growth (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Front+Page/Panel+grapples+with+reclassification%2C+growth+-+7-3-06+NCAA+News)

A working group formed late last year by the NCAA Executive Committee pledged to explore options ranging from slowing down membership movement from one division to another to creating a fourth division during its first in-person meeting June 16 in Chicago.

The Executive Committee Membership Working Group agreed to explore the Association-wide impact of divisional reclassification policies and also to study ways of controlling Division III's growth without harming other divisions, and agreed to meet again this fall to discuss possible options for addressing those issues.


This working group is looking at the future of the NCAA-- how to deal with D-III's numbers, mainly.  They had to take a pledge, however-- to do no harm to D-II, so that certainly almost entirely leads in a direction of a creation of some sort of D-IV.

I'm sure this topic will get more interesting in the next year or two...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 10, 2006, 04:21:21 PM

That is true and very interesting.  I've never thought about that disconnect or lack thereof between admission and aid.  It's perfectly acceptible to grant leeway for extra life experience in admissions, but d3 schools should keep that out of their aid packages.

However, you also have the other side of things too, namely not prejudicing the system against athletes.  I think if you have a fair admissions system (one that puts athletic participation in proper proportion to other factors) that could be used to grant aid, especially at d3 schools.

I'd want a kid with financial need, who also happens to be an incredible leader on the soccer field to be able to get scholarships that reflect the leadership she's displayed.

They do need a line drawn between admissions and aid; I'm just not sure I want to it to be a dividing line.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 10, 2006, 05:59:40 PM
Johnnie, I would appreciate other voices, but, what can D2 do to make themselves more attractive?

The D3 model has competitive sports by student-athletes who will pay for the privilege.

The D1 model attracts the creme de la creme.

There is very little room in the middle.  The NCAA web site features occasional press releases about the identity of D2.

Any Texas D2's moving to D3 would be interesting.  The Lone Star Conference schools are completely different.  the Heartland Conference picked up 2 non-football NAIA schools this year, Texas A&M International in Laredo and UT-Permian Basin in Midland-Odessa.

Thanks for finding the article.  This shall be different, especially as the NCAC-types try to distinguish themselves from the rest of us.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on July 10, 2006, 06:46:30 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 10, 2006, 05:59:40 PM
Any Texas D2's moving to D3 would be interesting. 

Thanks for finding the article.  This shall be different, especially as the NCAC-types try to distinguish themselves from the rest of us.

Ralph:

I'm trying to imagine a Texas D2 venue moving to D3; that, as you say, would certainly be "interesting" ... and would likely occasion some tectonic rumblings. Texas A&M Kingsville, e.g., in the ASC?  Wow! what would Ron Harms and the late Gil Steinke say about that?  ;)

Plus, don't forget that those institutions who formed the Centennial were, perhaps, among the first in wanting to "distinguish" themselves from us mere D3 mortals.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Sabretooth Tiger on July 11, 2006, 09:54:46 AM
Interesting follow-up to yesterday's piece in the NY Times about colleges starting football programs.  Today's article is a commentary on Title IX from a point of view I had not considered.  Here's the link:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/opinion/11Tierney.html?th&emc=th
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 11, 2006, 11:14:40 AM

Well, I would have loved to read the article, but I'm not up for giving the New York Times my credit card number at this point.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on July 12, 2006, 09:45:59 AM
yeah, you have to be a paid "TimesSelect" member, or a subscriber to the newspaper to access that article.    Pity.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 12, 2006, 10:17:17 AM
Thank God for Westlaw-- I was able to download the article, and have to admit I disagree with Mr. Tierney.  Mr. Tierney's article is mainly about Title IX and argues that Title IX has prevented schools from having football teams or restarting them at cost to other men's sports.  He notes

Lately, though, as colleges have struggled with the declining number of men on campus, a few small schools have dared to start football teams. They argue that even if they end up with more male athletes, they're still being fair because more men want to play sports. It's not clear if this approach could survive a Title IX lawsuit; advocates for women's sports complain it's still discrimination. But the results on campus are already impressive, as Bill Pennington described in The Times yesterday...

I'm not suggesting that sports are a panacea for male education problems. Men are lagging behind women on campus for lots of reasons: less motivation and self-control, poorer academic skills. No matter what happens with Title IX, women will deservedly continue to outnumbermen on campus and dominate the honor rolls.

But because they're now so dominant, they don't need special federal protection in the one area that men excel. This playing field doesn't need to be leveled.


I disagree with Mr. Tierney's basis-- that women are so dominant on campus.  I don't disagree, however, that Title IX could be improved.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 12, 2006, 10:36:30 AM

I wonder how true that is across the board?

I went to a school with a 60-40 female-male split.  None of the teams were all that great (at least not great enough to draw participants based on success and glory anyway).

While the guys' teams were never beating people off, the women's sports had to go to a great deal of recruitment among the general student body just to have a decent number of players on the roster.

Is this something that happens across the board?  Granted, I went to a small school (even by d3 standards).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 12, 2006, 10:38:07 AM

Wait a minute, Westlaw gives you access to the NYT online?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 12, 2006, 10:44:32 AM
My Westlaw account does-- thru the Westlaw text, and usually trails a day or so.

Tierney notes the same as you do-- that Women's teams, even successful ones, often have trouble filling their rosters.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 12, 2006, 11:07:38 AM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on July 12, 2006, 10:44:32 AM
My Westlaw account does-- thru the Westlaw text, and usually trails a day or so.


Wow; good deal.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Comet 14 on July 13, 2006, 01:59:25 PM
Ralph Turner- I was reading through the posts on this page and came across your post talking about what can D2 do to make themselves more attractive? My son will be a freshman at Elmhurst next year playing football. I personally feel he could have gone D2 and played as a soph or junior, but there are just not enough d2 schools in the midweat to choose from. He didn,t want to go 6 hours from home and there are not enough schools close to Northern Illinois.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 13, 2006, 11:14:46 PM
Quote from: Comet 14 on July 13, 2006, 01:59:25 PM
Ralph Turner- I was reading through the posts on this page and came across your post talking about what can D2 do to make themselves more attractive? My son will be a freshman at Elmhurst next year playing football. I personally feel he could have gone D2 and played as a soph or junior, but there are just not enough d2 schools in the midweat to choose from. He didn,t want to go 6 hours from home and there are not enough schools close to Northern Illinois.
Comet, the NCAA only lists 155 schools playing D2 football (compared to nearly 230 in D3).

On the front page of the NCAA News is an announcment to determine, two D2 champions  (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Association+Updates/Division+II+to+consider+second+football+championship+-+07-13-06+update) dtermined by the number of football scholarships that they offer.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: tmerton on July 14, 2006, 12:34:43 AM
I'm sorry - the purpose of D2 is ....?   Is it the ability to give athletic scholarships?  If so, what is the difference between D2 and NAIA?

My own perception of D2 is schools that are below D3 academically - more like JCs that go for four years.

Of course, two years ago I didn't know much about D3 either.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: rockcat on July 14, 2006, 01:46:22 AM
Quote from: tmerton on July 14, 2006, 12:34:43 AM
I'm sorry - the purpose of D2 is ....?   Is it the ability to give athletic scholarships?  If so, what is the difference between D2 and NAIA?

My own perception of D2 is schools that are below D3 academically - more like JCs that go for four years.

Of course, two years ago I didn't know much about D3 either.

In my opinion there are only two reasons athletes go DII.  One is that it often is less expensive, whether because of cheaper tuition, athletic scholarship, etc.  The other is that a lot of 17 and 18 year olds want to brag about getting a football scholarship to (Fill in the blank) State University.  I also think the level of play is relatively close between DII and DIII unless you are talking about the top handful of DII's.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 14, 2006, 08:49:28 AM
Quote from: tmerton on July 14, 2006, 12:34:43 AM
I'm sorry - the purpose of D2 is ....?   Is it the ability to give athletic scholarships?  If so, what is the difference between D2 and NAIA?

My own perception of D2 is schools that are below D3 academically - more like JCs that go for four years.

Of course, two years ago I didn't know much about D3 either.

The NAIA does not require the school to offer as many sports nor to offer a sport in every season (fall winter spring) as the NCAA.  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 14, 2006, 09:09:59 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 13, 2006, 11:14:46 PM
Quote from: Comet 14 on July 13, 2006, 01:59:25 PM
Ralph Turner- I was reading through the posts on this page and came across your post talking about what can D2 do to make themselves more attractive? My son will be a freshman at Elmhurst next year playing football. I personally feel he could have gone D2 and played as a soph or junior, but there are just not enough d2 schools in the midweat to choose from. He didn,t want to go 6 hours from home and there are not enough schools close to Northern Illinois.
Comet, the NCAA only lists 155 schools playing D2 football (compared to nearly 230 in D3).

On the front page of the NCAA News is an announcment to determine, two D2 champions  (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Association+Updates/Division+II+to+consider+second+football+championship+-+07-13-06+update) dtermined by the number of football scholarships that they offer.

RT, thanks for bringing this up. 

In my opinion, what a strange move-- allow the NCAA to have approximately two sub-divisions of 75 teams each compete for national titles while Division III requires you to manuever through approximately 200 or more schools.  I have to believe that this move for D-2 cannot make financial sense from a championship revenue standpoint-- but short of restructuring all Divisions, what else can D-2 to stay afloat?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 14, 2006, 09:20:26 AM

The problem is even worse than that.  For football (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), but I don't think its anywhere close to evenly split between the teams offering 50 and the teams offering half.  You would have one good sized group and one smaller, albeit more competitive group.

The better option would be to say that the teams not offering max scholarships move up to the max or move to d3.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 14, 2006, 10:22:06 AM
Hoops fan, it appears that there are 282 full plus 8 provisional members in
in D2. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/myportal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4j3CQXJgFjGpvqRqCKOcAFfj)

A not-for-profit doesn't always have to make decisions that are favorable to "the bottom line".  This move to having separate playoffs for the different types of schools competing in football in D2 can only be a commitment to saving D2.

I still think that there are 2 most powerful forces pulling at intercollegiate athletics.

The D1 model--Get the finest athlete and play the "arms race" with your "peers" such as the Big Ten, the Big XII, the Pac-10, the SEC, ACC and Big East.  After all, are not the Mid-American Conference, Conference USA, WAC, Big South (in the case of Birmingham Southern et al.) etc. competing against "their peers"?

The D3 model--student-athletes who are paying for the privilege.  Real amateur intercollegiate athletics.

Everything else is in the middle. :-\
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 14, 2006, 10:31:31 AM

Yeah that middle ground has always seemed like a waste to me.  I live near an NAIA school that gives a bunch of scholarships (mostly partial) and not a single one of their teams could ever hope to compete nationally in even d3 and they don't ever generate enough revenue to come close to covering costs.  It just seems silly that they would continue to operate on scholarships, especially when half of their scholarship athletes leave school because of academic issues.

I know not all d2/naia schools operate that way, but do any of them generate enough revenue to make the scholarships worthwhile?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 14, 2006, 12:42:44 PM
I came across this news release that reflects the recent events that impacted Birmingham-Southern.  When B-SC was moving out of the NAIA in the late 1990's, Richard Scrushy was a high-flyer in Birmingham.

His generosity to B-SC was manifested in a new baseball stadium and other contributions.  Mr Scrushy sat on the B-SC board as well.

Part of that is still unraveling with B-SC a part of the collateral damage.  Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy  (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060630/us_nm/scrushy_trial_dc) have been convicted of bribery.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 14, 2006, 12:51:32 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on July 14, 2006, 10:31:31 AM

Yeah that middle ground has always seemed like a waste to me.  I live near an NAIA school that gives a bunch of scholarships (mostly partial) and not a single one of their teams could ever hope to compete nationally in even d3 and they don't ever generate enough revenue to come close to covering costs.  It just seems silly that they would continue to operate on scholarships, especially when half of their scholarship athletes leave school because of academic issues.

I know not all d2/naia schools operate that way, but do any of them generate enough revenue to make the scholarships worthwhile?

I wouldn't exactly call it a waste, even though I don't care for their game.  There are some great benefits to providing a chance for college for individuals who aren't smart enough to get an academic scholarship or rich enough to pay their own way a la D3.    It allows an institution, often times public, to fulfill its mission of providing education to all classes of society, and getting something out of it.

I think there are D2 schools that are profitable-- there must be-- I think Winona State has done pretty well, and the NCC as a whole has done ok, but that is misleading, because many in the NCC have D-1 hockey programs that "fund" their athletic department (UND, SCSU, UNO, UMD, MSU), and the others are the state flagship institutions (USD). 

But short of offering "big time" activities like the NCC, the model cannot work like the often smaller D3 schools, where football/athletics are often a link for alums to reconnect with their schools, and the general community feel while an undergrad continues on Saturdays in the fall because alums still have connections there.  But when you are at SCSU you are just a number-- you have no real feeling of connection to the school other than the D1 hockey program, so when you graduate, why go back for a football game?

Schools that are the only game in town I think do pretty well at the D2 level financially, but other than that the model must struggle.  Especially when you consider private schools like Augustana (Sioux Falls, SD) and Concordia (St. Paul, MN), whose tuition is $25k or so, whereas at SCSU/UND et al it is closer to $10-15k, so for every one scholarship CSP gives it is, it is two for UND.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: rockcat on July 14, 2006, 02:30:26 PM
The decision to be DII or NAIA is often based on finances.  This also is why there is a big difference between the best and worst teams at these levels.  Western Oregon is a great example.  They are DII but don't give out the maximum scholarships allowed in DII.  On the other end of the spectrum is NAIA Lewis and Clark State College who just won their 14 baseball national championship since 1984.  Their athletic department is funded better than many others in NAIA.  If you look at NAIA's closely you'll find the majority are unstable financially.

Many DII's and NAIA's are regional public universities or small religious affiliated colleges without much of an endowment.  Tuition dollars are vital for their survival.  Even if their athletic department is "losing" money, having those additional bodies on campus who might otherise go elsewhere ends up nets the institution money.  The disparity then is determined often by what approach the institution takes toward athletics.  Is it viewed as a financial burden or a revenue builder (tuition/room and board, not ticket sales).  Leadership from upper administration and the board of trustees directly influences this direction.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 14, 2006, 03:16:32 PM

I didn't think about the fact that a school couldn't replace the 98 guys they have on partial scholarships for football with other students.  That makes sense.  It certainly explains why the naia near me throws so much money at the football program.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on July 17, 2006, 01:33:36 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on July 14, 2006, 03:16:32 PM

I didn't think about the fact that a school couldn't replace the 98 guys they have on partial scholarships for football with other students.  That makes sense.  It certainly explains why the naia near me throws so much money at the football program.

That, and it may be the only model available to them. The NAIA school near you, like so many others among its peers over the past two decades, may have wanted to scrap the NAIA model and go NCAA D3 (especially if it's a small private liberal arts college, like most D3s). The ranks of D3 have become stuffed over the past twenty years with former NAIA schools. The NCAA-legislated tap on the pipeline has slowed that flow to a trickle now, making the chances of such a move much more problematic. Plus, if you're an NAIA school out in the middle of Kansas, it'd be even more difficult to shift over to D3, since you don't have any other D3 schools anywhere close. I don't imagine that Nebraska Wesleyan, and its grandfathered "we go one way in the postseason, and the rest of the GPAC goes another way" model is one that other school presidents and ADs would like to emulate.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 17, 2006, 09:34:01 AM

Yeah, it's true there is no competition out here.  NebWes and Grinnell I believe are the closest to me.  Although some of the SLIAC schools may be within three hours, now that I think about it.

They'd probably have to get the whole conference to swtich over if they were going to make it worth while.  And the more I think about it, the more I realize they need those partial scholarships to keep enrollment up.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on July 18, 2006, 11:09:44 AM
That's a shame. It's like athletics is wagging the dog.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 18, 2006, 11:42:26 AM
Quote from: smedindy on July 18, 2006, 11:09:44 AM
That's a shame. It's like athletics is wagging the dog.


It's probably not ideal, but it sure is a way to get paying students into the school.  I question where the line is drawn between recruiting athletes who can actually hack it academically or recruiting athletes who just want to play college sports at nearly any cost.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on July 18, 2006, 11:50:36 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on July 18, 2006, 11:42:26 AM
Quote from: smedindy on July 18, 2006, 11:09:44 AM
That's a shame. It's like athletics is wagging the dog.


It's probably not ideal, but it sure is a way to get paying students into the school.  I question where the line is drawn between recruiting athletes who can actually hack it academically or recruiting athletes who just want to play college sports at nearly any cost.

If I were a cynic, I'd say that there's a good deal of such "dog-wagging" going on in collegiate athletics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 18, 2006, 12:08:07 PM


Good thing you're not a cynic.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 24, 2006, 09:22:35 AM
The St. Cloud Times had a few articles yesterday (http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SPORTS&Date=20060723) outlining the current D2 situation, and what is happening at that level.  They basically recap what we've discussed here, so not much new, but note that it is unlikely that more than one other NCC school is ready to make the jump to D1-AA at this time.   They also note that NAIA schools from the DAC will likely join D2.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 27, 2006, 10:38:47 PM
The NCAC is expected to propose (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/myportal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj) a formal cap of 459 active members at the January meeting.

419 currently active members plus
18   currently provisional members plus
18   currently classified as exploratory plus
4     current D1's and D2's which were declared  reclassifying to D3 by June 1, 2006.

(Reported at NCAA News on July 17, 2006.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on July 27, 2006, 11:10:55 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 27, 2006, 10:38:47 PM
The NCAC is expected to propose (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/myportal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj) a formal cap of 459 active members at the January meeting.

419 currently active members plus
18   currently provisional members plus
18   currently classified as exploratory plus
4     current D1's and D2's which were declared  reclassifying to D3 by June 1, 2006.

(Reported at NCAA News on July 17, 2006.)

WOW, I never realized the NCAC was that big!!  Yet Witt and Woo can still win every year in bball!;)

(Some typos are just typos - others are hilarious!) ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 27, 2006, 11:30:53 PM
The NCAC isn't that big. But it's proposing a cap on Division III, which is that big.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on July 28, 2006, 12:15:18 AM
Not having an NCAA ID, I couldn't read the story.  You mean that wasn't a typo?

OOPS! ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 28, 2006, 08:54:09 AM

Maybe you should get an NCAA ID?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 28, 2006, 09:20:17 AM

A cap seems a bit ill-advised.  Perhaps a redoing of the non-d1 divisions might be better.  I like the idea of having as many schools as possible, so long as they maintain the d3 ideals.  If there needs to be a more competitive non-scholarship division, so be it.  I'd rather have d1 offering scholarships and that's it.  If schools want to offer partial, they should just go NAIA.  I know its not a popular position, but it makes the most sense to me.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 28, 2006, 12:11:11 PM
Redshirting issues still are alive; from the NCAA news (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Association+Updates/Proposals+enter+legislative+cycle+-+07-28-06+update):

In Division III, two proposals deal with redshirting. One from the Minnesota Conference would specify that participation at any collegiate institution constitutes the use of a season of eligibility.

Another from the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic, the Great Northeast and the Northwest Conferences would permit student-athletes to practice during the nontraditional season without losing a season of participation, regardless of whether the nontraditional season is in the fall or the spring, provided that the student-athlete does not participate in competition during that period. The Division III governance structure has discussed supporting a similar effort.


There is also a proposal in D2 which has some substantial effect on the D2 issues:
Of the Division II proposals, one from the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and the Gulf South Conference would require a two-thirds majority membership vote when a reduction in scholarship maximums is proposed in any sport. The Division II Presidents Council is expected to sponsor a similar proposal for all Division II championship sports that covers instances in which either a reduction or an increase is proposed.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 28, 2006, 12:54:50 PM
I agree that the NCAA needs to look again at its structure from top down.  The problem is that the current base philosophy in any comprehensive reform is, in part, to do no harm to Division II.  It's tough to develop a fresh analysis and suggest viable alternatives when your one firm rule is to maintain the current environment.

But as we all know, the NCAA is hardly a logical body.

This new proposal in D2 is really a forerunner to the real battleground.  The GLIAC proposal to require 66% of the membership to vote to decrease scholarship limits is an attempt to strongarm the growing momentum at D2 of decreasing scholarships into falling in line.  It is a good proposal-- it forces a supermajority of the membership to stick together as a core.   However, it has a possible effect, in the current 51-49-like status of the D2 camps, of holding the status quo for a short time, until budgets inevitably push more schools into a new supermajority, at which point the battle begins again, and forcing the schools that desired the higher scholarship caps to make a choice between D1 or a watered down D2.  At which point is a watered down D2 no longer viable?

I don't like caps.  Schools are flexible entities, and their student bodies change over time.  There are some current NAIA members who, if given the opportunity, I'm sure could be and would be better members of NCAA D3 than some that are in D3 now. 

D2's proposal to split into two football divisions doesn't seem to make sense to me.  While it would appear to save games (1 fewer game, I think, splitting one 24 team tourney into two tourneys-- a 16 and an 8 team tourney), I have to think that is compounded by increased expenses of sites and managements, since they would be run concurrently and independently, and promotion of two different champions.  But if the costs are less, I am shocked that D3 wouldn't consider the same thing-- 2 16 team tournaments should mean 30 games; 1 32 team tournament means 31 games.  The question comes down to: cost of cross-country travel for championships versus revenues from a playoff game.  If the latter is consistently greater than the former, the NCAA would be stupid for giving it up.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 28, 2006, 01:22:58 PM


Yeah, that desire to preserve D-II just seems ludicrous to me.  I'm ok with splitting football up into divisions (as they've done) because of the immense costs of that, but why have a separate division just so teams can compete with less scholarships.

The NCAA is getting to be too much of a business.  At this point it seems like they care more about revenue and the number of participating institutions than they do about sticking with their mission statement.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 28, 2006, 02:20:45 PM
Johnnie, in the press release to which you link concerning new legislation, there is this quote...

QuoteOther Division I proposals of note (with sponsor):


* To limit the one-time transfer exception only to student-athletes who transfer from Division III institutions (Southern Conference).

Do you know the background for the proposal?

Does it relate to Brimingham-Southern?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 31, 2006, 12:05:20 PM
I'd have to think it has more to do with D-2 transfers than D-3 transfers.  Being that the Southern Conference is D1-AA, this may be a situation where they are losing kids by transfer to D2 schools in the area.  In theory, a D1A athlete can transfer once to D1AA without penalty; or from D1 to D2 or D3 once without penalty.  So if you don't make the D1-AA starting squad as a frosh, you can transfer to the D2 across town and start there, and don't miss a beat.

Without looking at the wording of the proposal, I really don't understand how it helps either D1-AA or D-2.  It may even help D3...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on August 01, 2006, 10:59:33 PM
is there any talk about the NCSA rankings anywhere?
or where would should I start up my questions/comments about them?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 01, 2006, 11:16:16 PM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on August 01, 2006, 10:59:33 PM
is there any talk about the NCSA rankings anywhere?
or where would should I start up my questions/comments about them?

Good evening, Wydown.

Is this what you mean?

The NSCAA Rankings message board (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=4636.from1149826013#new)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 01, 2006, 11:28:54 PM
Probably these NCSA rankings:

http://www.ncsasports.org/Powerrankings/index.htm

This is the first I've heard of them, by the way.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on August 02, 2006, 12:14:05 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 01, 2006, 11:28:54 PM
Probably these NCSA rankings:

http://www.ncsasports.org/Powerrankings/index.htm

This is the first I've heard of them, by the way.

I notice that 6 of the top 8 schools were NESCAC.

Perhaps there is a valid reason you have not heard of them! ;)

I don't even know what sport they were talking about, but that is absurd.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: diehardfan on August 02, 2006, 12:26:01 AM
lol... they're talking about the school as a whole... as in, academics rating according to US news... combined with graduation rates of athletes... and their director's cup ranking (which is for all sports, and NESCAC schools always win cause they have like... fencing and equestrian and other random sport championships that give them a lot of points)

it totally makes sense that the list is all NESCAC schools... actually, I think that's a pretty darn cool list :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: diehardfan on August 02, 2006, 12:27:06 AM
oh snap.... wheaton is on that list! awesometacular  :D 8)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 02, 2006, 12:41:18 AM
Not reading the rankings before dismissing them ... that's absurd.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on August 02, 2006, 01:13:52 AM
you guys are pretty funny... and not the soccer rankings, but those mixed overall rankings

My take on this rankings:
First of all, they are interesting and a neat idea. Useful for very little, and of course they are flawed and will be ripped a part by sports fans little by little.
The benefits of the list is that its a solid compilation of statistics and rankings. Even if you were to disagree with who belongs where on the list and why, it does make comparisons within the three categories easier. However, I think that the biggest flaw is the use of the US News rankings for D3. Those rankings compare colleges with other colleges and university's with like universities. Therefore Universities such as Emory, MIT, and University of Chicago (just being examples that I am familiar with), are not comprable to Williams and Amherst in US News Rankings.

For Division I that flaw is also illustrated with the College of Charleston appearing at 23 on the I-A list.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 02, 2006, 09:37:41 AM
IMHO, Mr Krause has put together an slick marketing campaign to sell his scouting services.

He chose ".org" vs ".com" in his domain name to deflect some immediate criticism.

I did not readily find any numbers as to who was paying for his services.

I can see his services being needed if graduation rates become a component of D1 or D2 scholarship allocations.  Playing the stereotypes, he can match the smart "white guys [who] can't jump" but have a 3.9 GPA and will graduate to offset the "double-double" power forward" who won't show up for class....

"Say Krause, this is Coach Jones at Eastern State.  I need a 3.9 GPA basketball player.  Got one for me?"   ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 'gro on August 02, 2006, 02:26:17 PM
if only there was a similar D3 power ranking of academics and football only (seeya NESCAC), I believe the Liberty League would monkey stomp the competition.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on August 02, 2006, 02:54:00 PM
Oh and btw, I had never heard of this ranking either, before a two days ago when i was checking the Wash U website and their press realease about them appeared. However, when i googled "2006 NCSA Collegiate Power Rankings," there were press releases from Duke, Kenyon College, Yale etc this year and in years past.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 02, 2006, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: enginegro on August 02, 2006, 02:26:17 PM
if only there was a similar D3 power ranking of academics and football only (seeya NESCAC), I believe the Liberty League would monkey stomp the competition.

Gro, D3 schools are included in the NSCA table.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 'gro on August 02, 2006, 03:38:26 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 02, 2006, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: enginegro on August 02, 2006, 02:26:17 PM
if only there was a similar D3 power ranking of academics and football only (seeya NESCAC), I believe the Liberty League would monkey stomp the competition.

Gro, D3 schools are included in the NSCA table.

thanks for the tip, now read the bold print.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 03, 2006, 02:25:17 AM
Quote from: enginegro on August 02, 2006, 03:38:26 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 02, 2006, 03:30:00 PM
Quote from: enginegro on August 02, 2006, 02:26:17 PM
if only there was a similar D3 power ranking of academics and football only (seeya NESCAC), I believe the Liberty League would monkey stomp the competition.

Gro, D3 schools are included in the NSCA table.

thanks for the tip, now read the bold print.

Thanks!  LOL   :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 'gro on August 03, 2006, 10:36:35 AM
my original comment was just me trying to ease my way up on the soapbox... but I'll just put it out there... I think that RPI has one of the best combinations of academic excellence and football performance in D3... even someone not as biased (for obvious reasons) as myself would have to put them in the top 5-10.

ok I'm done now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Sabretooth Tiger on August 03, 2006, 03:23:00 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on August 02, 2006, 12:14:05 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 01, 2006, 11:28:54 PM
Probably these NCSA rankings:

http://www.ncsasports.org/Powerrankings/index.htm

This is the first I've heard of them, by the way.

I notice that 6 of the top 8 schools were NESCAC.

Perhaps there is a valid reason you have not heard of them! ;)

I don't even know what sport they were talking about, but that is absurd.

Speaking from my west coast island bias and having reviewed the purported NCAS 2005 dIII rankings that include so cal schools Redlands, LaVerne and Chapman in the rankings but omit Claremont, Pomona and Oxy . . . in a list that purports to rest on athletics and academics . . . the list is a joke.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on August 03, 2006, 03:49:12 PM
The rankings are interesting, but I'm not sure how much value they have.  Using the Directors' Cup as a barometer of overall athletic excellence only works for the top tier of schools ranked in it.  After you get further down the Directors' Cup rankings, you can run into schools that excel in one or two sports, but don't do well in others.  I don't think you can say that those schools have better all around athletic departments than a school which might not make the NCAA Tournament in anything one year but competes well in every sport. 

Besides that, I'm not sure if, say, a men's soccer recruit cares that much if a school wins national titles in cross country and swimming on an annual basis if that school usually stinks in soccer.  The "overall athletic department" factors that would more likely influence a recruit would be quality of facilities, staff, etc. 

Only big exception I can think of would be a recruit looking at school which has just introduced or is about to introduce his/her chosen sport.  Then I can see how the success of the school's other athletic programs could be a big deciding factor.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: diehardfan on August 03, 2006, 04:30:06 PM
Quote from: Sabretooth Tiger on August 03, 2006, 03:23:00 PM
Speaking from my west coast island bias and having reviewed the purported NCAS 2005 dIII rankings that include SCIAC members Redlands, LaVerne and Chapman in the rankings but omit Claremont, Pomona and Oxy . . . in a list that purports to rest on athletics and academics . . . the list is a joke.
Uhm, isn't Chapman an independant?

What I've always found interesting about the Director's Cup, is that it honors success in the random sports as much as the bigger sports. This may be a flaw, esp considering that the bigger sports have more teams competing in them... but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're a bad athletics colleges just because we don't care about the sports they're good at. Basketball and football are only intrinsically better in my head. :D

I think at some point, the very valid point about Liberal Arts Colleges and Universities improperly has a greater effect than it does at the top. At that point, it's just a vaild statement to say, hey, these schools have good all around programs, the order doesn't really matter. When it's to the point that they're supposedly good enough to be on the list, but are so far down they don't really matter, like LaVerne is in the 70s in 2005, I can hardly see how it's accurate any more. It's just too hard to accurately label colleges after a certain point in ANY poll, even a completely statistical one.

Here's a random thought... if a school's academic program is easier, wouldn't it make it more likely that the athletes graduate? That stat doesn't necessarily mean a school is better....  :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Sabretooth Tiger on August 03, 2006, 04:45:21 PM
You're right, Chapman is independent, I should have referenced So Cal rather than SCIAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 06, 2006, 11:55:08 AM
SCIAC member Cal Tech is in the  2006 top 50.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 07, 2006, 10:48:58 AM


I've returned from climbing Mt Whitney, April, you have a beautiful adopted home state.

I guess all the debate here has pretty much run its course, but I thought extra attention needed to be drawn to the wonderful "monkey stomp" reference from Gro, just fantastic.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: diehardfan on August 07, 2006, 12:07:07 PM
Excellent! I didn't know you were the backpacker / mountaineer sort! Congrats. :)

I love Sequoia National Park... it's completely beautiful out in that area. I bet it was really different than it was when I was there in April temperature wise though!

I guess all the debate here has pretty much run its course

IMHO, it's never too late to bring up something totally random. I find stuff on the board that's over a month old and I still bring it up if it's the first time I've seen it. :D Especially during the summer, no one is going to care. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: northb on August 08, 2006, 05:40:43 PM
test
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 08, 2006, 07:43:56 PM
The Commissioners Update (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/commissioners_update.pdf) has a couple of interesting items.

D3 will consider Male Practice Players in Women's sports.  The teams are limited to no more than 1/2 of the number of athletes needed to field a team, for one practice per week, in the traditional segment and use a year of eligibility if they practice beyond the first game.  Please check the pdf file for more details.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on August 09, 2006, 08:18:17 AM
I think some of the NCAA regulations are kind of ridiculous.   

But that's just me...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 09, 2006, 09:20:00 AM


I didn't know that was illegal before.  My intramural team used to scrimmage the women's varsity all the time (well at least those of us 6' 3/4" and shorter anyway).


I guess the alma mater should do some self reporting.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 09, 2006, 11:20:29 AM
It wasn't illegal before. It was unregulated and perceived to be a problem.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 09, 2006, 11:50:56 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 09, 2006, 11:20:29 AM
It wasn't illegal before. It was unregulated and perceived to be a problem.


Good to know.  I'm glad I didn't contribute to any NCAA violations, although that might be something fun to brag about, like the time I was kicked out of Canada.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on August 09, 2006, 03:12:32 PM
Does this scrimmage rule apply to track and field, cross country and tennis?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 09, 2006, 03:13:46 PM


I would assume it applies across the board, what with the NCAA being all egalitarian and stuff.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: diehardfan on August 10, 2006, 12:30:14 AM
uhm, how exactly does one regulate cross country... and why would one even care? don't you just run? why would it help to have a guy there? ???
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 10, 2006, 01:26:10 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 09, 2006, 11:50:56 AMGood to know.  I'm glad I didn't contribute to any NCAA violations, although that might be something fun to brag about, like the time I was kicked out of Canada.

Got a little too grabby when you went to see the Windsor Ballet, eh?  ;)

Quote from: diehardfan on August 10, 2006, 12:30:14 AM
uhm, how exactly does one regulate cross country... and why would one even care? don't you just run? why would it help to have a guy there? ???

Perhaps women's cross-country coaches enlist the best-looking male on campus to run ahead of the women and give them something to chase, a la the electric rabbit at the dog track. Or perhaps the coaches enlist the worst-looking male on campus to chase the female harriers.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: diehardfan on August 10, 2006, 02:43:58 AM
it would have to be a piano playing d3fan and theologian who likes art, theatre, poetry, nature and hiking to make the chase worth it in my book :P

if it was just a good looking guy with no substance, I'd just stand there and roll my eyes  ::)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 10, 2006, 08:56:41 AM

I guess that's why you don't run cross-country.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on August 10, 2006, 09:23:38 AM
Nice discussion about X-Country but what about swimming?  Can't have different sexes practicing in the same pool now can we :o? 

But seriously, at many schools the Men and Women Cross Country and Track teams share the same Head Coach and "practice" together.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 10, 2006, 10:35:50 AM
Quote from: wilburt on August 10, 2006, 09:23:38 AM
Nice discussion about X-Country but what about swimming?  Can't have different sexes practicing in the same pool now can we :o? 


Now Wilburt, you may be just old enough to remember your grandmother's concerns about "mixed" bathing as our friends the Baptists would call it.

My Baptist friends who went off to Church camp were not permitted to swim at the same time as the opposite gender.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on August 10, 2006, 11:17:01 AM
Have the Southern Baptists taken over the NCAA?  If so, then that would explain the scrimmage rule  :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 10, 2006, 12:25:19 PM


Yeah but for sports such as swimming or cross country where the men's and women's teams and seasons coincide, the men practicing with the women are on the men's team.  I think this rule is for non-participating athletes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on August 10, 2006, 12:59:48 PM
I don't think the proposed rule makes that distinction Hoops Fan, but I could be wrong.

I was just trying to point out how silly some of the NCAA rules can be if taken/applied to its logical extreme...

To me the rule was intended to apply to "contact" sports like basketball, lacrosse and volleyball (maybe a stretch there) rather than to "non-contact" sports like track, tennis and swimming.  But that's just me  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 10, 2006, 03:56:19 PM

Yes but when two teams use the same facilities to practice at the same time, they are not necessarily practicing together.  I would extend that to the course or the pool.  Just because the two teams occupy the same space, does not mean they are practicing together.


And that concludes my contribution to today's pointless semantics debate.  Funny how often those pop up around the NCAA, huh?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on August 10, 2006, 10:55:06 PM
All these silly semantics are why my nephew enjoys coaching at an NAIA school more fun than coaching at an NCAA school.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 11, 2006, 01:35:14 AM
Quote from: knightstalker on August 10, 2006, 10:55:06 PM
All these silly semantics are why my nephew enjoys coaching at an NAIA school more fun than coaching at an NCAA school.

That's because at NAIA schools they think "semantics" was the nose-twitching babe that was married to Darren on Bewitched.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on August 11, 2006, 05:10:20 AM
Proposed Rules of Thumb: Less NCAA is more. No NCAA is nirvana.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on August 11, 2006, 07:02:00 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 11, 2006, 01:35:14 AM
Quote from: knightstalker on August 10, 2006, 10:55:06 PM
All these silly semantics are why my nephew enjoys coaching at an NAIA school more fun than coaching at an NCAA school.

That's because at NAIA schools they think "semantics" was the nose-twitching babe that was married to Darren on Bewitched.

I thought semantics was the stuff used to glue thing.  Take that broken piece and semantic back to the vase.

Like my nephew says, I may not be very C-A-T- smart but you can't catch me.   :D  Besides someone has to be nice to all the lonely, confused kids that wander into the middle of nowhere and end up going to Houghton.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on August 11, 2006, 07:19:37 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 10, 2006, 03:56:19 PM

Yes but when two teams use the same facilities to practice at the same time, they are not necessarily practicing together.  I would extend that to the course or the pool.  Just because the two teams occupy the same space, does not mean they are practicing together.

Hoops Fan you sound like a former President I know trying to define what the word "is" is  ;D   Now that's semantical  :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 11, 2006, 09:11:17 AM


"Is" can be a very confusing word, man.  And Frank, I'm not sure where Kurt Cobain figures into any of this.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on August 11, 2006, 01:12:29 PM
Cobain is dead - if only the NCAA were.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 11, 2006, 01:21:49 PM
Quote from: frank uible on August 11, 2006, 01:12:29 PM
Cobain is dead - if only the NCAA were.


And that response, my friends, cannot be topped.  Short and to the point--that's why he's on the list of future hall of famers.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on August 14, 2006, 12:00:33 PM
Do D3 coaches/ADs have to worry about athletes posting on myspace.com ot perhaps even d3hoops.com?  Check out the article about D1 coaches monitoring posts on myspace.com and the like.

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060814/COLUMNIST0202/608140355/1106/SPORTS
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 14, 2006, 12:40:42 PM


I don't think the issue in that particular article regarding online journal sites is as big of an issue for colleges.  There are plenty of things that athletes can't do that "regular" students can do simply because the athlete is officially a representative of the institution.  I don't see how that will change too much.  The only issue might be because the athletes are not employees, but I don't see that being a big deal.  Each school will determine what their athletes can and can't do and what the consequences are and the athletes will have to agree to it to play, just like they do any other behavior policy.

The big trouble a lot of schools are getting into with myspace and other sites in recruiting.  A kid posts he's choosing between UK and Florida, then all the boosters come out of the woodwork to post on his site and persuade him.  That may not be as big of an issue in d3, but you never know.  This may be an off-shoot of the texting policy the NCAA is currently working on.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 15, 2006, 12:53:14 PM
Newsweek today has a list of 25 "Hot" schools for students looking for Ivy alternatives.  D3 is well represented with Bowdoin, CMU, Colby, Kenyon, Emory, CMS, Macalester, NYU, Rochester, RPI, Skidmore, Tufts and WashU all on the list.  (They included Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, Swarthmore and Wesleyan with the traditional powers, so don't get all uppity my NESCAC friends).


Interestingly, they did a whole write-up on Kenyon and didn't mention swimming at all.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on August 15, 2006, 02:33:12 PM
Interesting news.  Did any NAIA schools make the "Ivy" list?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 15, 2006, 04:49:27 PM


The rest of the list (by the way, the only schools excluded from contention were the Ivies and the five non-Ivies previously mentioned) is:

Boston College
Colgate (I bet a bunch of you thought they were an Ivy, but that would be Cornell)
Davidson
Michigan
UNC-Chapel Hill
Notre Dame
Olin College of Engineering (really cool school; you should check it out)
Reed College (where the inmates run the asylum, in a good way)
Rice
UCLA
Vanderbilt
UVA

They also put in a plug for the big four Scottish Universities (Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow and St. Andrews).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 15, 2006, 06:31:41 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 15, 2006, 04:49:27 PM


The rest of the list (by the way, the only schools excluded from contention were the Ivies and the five non-Ivies previously mentioned) is:

Boston College
Colgate (I bet a bunch of you thought they were an Ivy, but that would be Cornell)
Davidson
Michigan
UNC-Chapel Hill
Notre Dame
Olin College of Engineering (really cool school; you should check it out)
Reed College (where the inmates run the asylum, in a good way)
Rice
UCLA
Vanderbilt
UVA

They also put in a plug for the big four Scottish Universities (Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow and St. Andrews).

Has McGill fallen from the list of the favored? ??? :-\
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on August 15, 2006, 07:35:12 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 15, 2006, 06:31:41 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 15, 2006, 04:49:27 PM


The rest of the list (by the way, the only schools excluded from contention were the Ivies and the five non-Ivies previously mentioned) is:

Boston College
Colgate (I bet a bunch of you thought they were an Ivy, but that would be Cornell)
Davidson
Michigan
UNC-Chapel Hill
Notre Dame
Olin College of Engineering (really cool school; you should check it out)
Reed College (where the inmates run the asylum, in a good way)
Rice
UCLA
Vanderbilt
UVA

They also put in a plug for the big four Scottish Universities (Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow and St. Andrews).

Has McGill fallen from the list of the favored? ??? :-\

I am kind of surprised that Lafayette is not on that list.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 'gro on August 16, 2006, 08:15:07 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 15, 2006, 12:53:14 PM
Newsweek today has a list of 25 "Hot" schools for students looking for Ivy alternatives.  D3 is well represented with Bowdoin, CMU, Colby, Kenyon, Emory, CMS, Macalester, NYU, Rochester, RPI, Skidmore, Tufts and WashU all on the list.

and when it comes to football, I think RPI has them all beat. At least Emory.

Quote from: enginegro on August 03, 2006, 10:36:35 AM
I think that RPI has one of the best combinations of academic excellence and football performance in D3... even someone not as biased (for obvious reasons) as myself would have to put them in the top 5-10.

somebody at Newsweek's picking up what I'm droping off. Nice article.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 16, 2006, 09:45:26 AM


I guess they skipped Canada.  Time had a similar article (as they always due, stupid copycats) and mentioned McGill and U of Toronto as North of the Border options.  I'm guessing at this point McGill is no longer a secret (much like Williams, Amherst and Middlebury).
Title: male practice players in women's sports
Post by: hoopwitch on September 20, 2006, 09:29:21 AM
Proposed ncaa legislation may limit the use of males as practice players in all DIII sports.  The other divisions are looking into this too.  I know that DIII basketball coaches are against this legislation but what about other sport coaches?  The reason given for the change is that women are being denied practice time when males take a spot on the court or field (I'm not sure how prevelent this practice is in other sports?).  If females are sitting on the sidelines in practice then it is poor coaching rather than the fault of any male in practice.  Males allow the best females to face better competition (stronger, taller, etc.).   Males allow females to go against a tougher pressing defense.  Males allow teams with low numbers to full court scrimmage.  I'm afraid that this is another example of one person making a statement at a committee meeting (probably the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics) and then the issue gains a life of it's own.  Of course, look who is now being targeted...DIII!   
Title: Re: male practice players in women's sports
Post by: bbald eagle on September 20, 2006, 02:34:39 PM
Can you provide a link to the proposed legislation so we can read it?
Title: Re: Male practice players in women's sports
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 20, 2006, 02:38:23 PM
Quote from: bbald eagle on September 20, 2006, 02:34:39 PM
Can you provide a link to the proposed legislation so we can read it?
Please find the link to the NCAA site in my post below. :)

http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.510
Title: Re: male practice players in women's sports
Post by: bbald eagle on September 20, 2006, 02:50:56 PM
Ralph,

Thanks. Your link took me to .pdf of a September Commissioner's Update that didn't seem to address this as near as I could tell. I'm betting the link originally went to an earlier Commissioner Update that's now been replaced.

I did find this on the internet, though. The August 22, 2006, MINUTES OF THE NCAA DIVISION III ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE CONFERENCE NO. 6 say:

"Acting for the Division III Management Council and Presidents Council, the Administrative Committee:
1.         Reviewed and approved proposed 2007 NCAA Convention legislation sponsored by the NCAA Division III Presidents Council and not yet reviewed in legislative form, consistent with the September 1 deadline.
...  
g.                   Eligibility – General Eligibility Requirements – Male Practice Player Eligibility – Requirements.  To establish requirements for the use of male practice players as follows:  male practice players shall only be permitted to practice in the traditional segment; use is limited to one practice per week, and the number of male practice players for each team sport shall not exceed half of the number of student-athletes required to field a starting unit in that sport.
The committee recommended that a reference be added in the rationale statement regarding the related noncontroversial proposal that requires complete eligibility certification for male practice players.  Further clarifications will be addressed in the Convention Proposal Q & A document."

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/administrative_committee/2006/2006-06_ADCOM_minutes.htm
Title: Re: male practice players in women's sports
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on September 20, 2006, 03:44:16 PM

I'm going to merge this debate into the "Future of Division III Board"  This topic has been discussed there earlier this summer and it seems to fit there better.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hoopwitch on September 24, 2006, 02:41:44 PM
Does anyone know how often are males used in sports other than women's hoop?  Also, you can see from the proposed legislation that in women's hoop, only 2 males would be allowed to practice and only once a week.  I believe that the use of males is not widespread at the DIII level but those programs that need the option should be able to retain it.  No player or coach complained about males in practice until possibly after the proposal was made known.   This may be simply another example of a rule suggestion to justify a committee's existence or a personal agenda!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on September 25, 2006, 09:16:10 AM


I've seen guys practice with the women's tennis team on occasion if there happened to be odd numbers that day, but that would probably most often fall within the allowances of this rule.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on September 25, 2006, 11:06:46 AM
My goodness, with these new "rules" the NCAA rule manual must be as thick as the U.S. Tax Code.  The only difference though is that the tax code is probably easier to understand!!!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on September 25, 2006, 11:45:53 AM


No one likes the NCAA, but you can't give the IRS a break here, man.  Come back to reality, please, for your own good.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on September 25, 2006, 12:27:10 PM
wilburt: And less unjustifiable!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 25, 2006, 05:41:01 PM
Quote from: wilburt on September 25, 2006, 11:06:46 AM
My goodness, with these new "rules" the NCAA rule manual must be as thick as the U.S. Tax Code.  The only difference though is that the tax code is probably easier to understand!!!

In Wilburt's world, the Tax Code is easier to understand. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on September 25, 2006, 05:43:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 25, 2006, 05:41:01 PM
Quote from: wilburt on September 25, 2006, 11:06:46 AM
My goodness, with these new "rules" the NCAA rule manual must be as thick as the U.S. Tax Code.  The only difference though is that the tax code is probably easier to understand!!!

In Wilburt's world, the Tax Code is easier to understand. ;)


Wow, I'm not sure what to make of this.  Either he can afford a good accountant or he's homeless.  I'm not sure which is better.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: bbald eagle on September 26, 2006, 10:17:33 AM
Quote from: hoopwitch on September 24, 2006, 02:41:44 PM
Does anyone know how often are males used in sports other than women's hoop?  

"Many coaches and administrators feel that using male practice players is most common among women's basketball teams, but the system is also used in a variety of other sports, including women's volleyball, women's soccer, women's ice hockey, softball and rowing."

http://volleytalk.proboards88.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1156096650&page=1#1156096650

And, from the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet:

"The issue also extends beyond basketball, traditionally thought of as the sport that most employs the practice. One cabinet member said her school's women's soccer team lost a potential all-American right before the NCAA tournament when she tangled with a male practice player and badly broke her leg."

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/newsdetail?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Division+I/Cabinet+gives+philosophical+nod+to+at-larges+in+selections+-+7-17-06+NCAA+News 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on September 26, 2006, 11:58:20 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on September 25, 2006, 05:43:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 25, 2006, 05:41:01 PM
Quote from: wilburt on September 25, 2006, 11:06:46 AM
My goodness, with these new "rules" the NCAA rule manual must be as thick as the U.S. Tax Code.  The only difference though is that the tax code is probably easier to understand!!!

In Wilburt's world, the Tax Code is easier to understand. ;)


Wow, I'm not sure what to make of this.  Either he can afford a good accountant or he's homeless.  I'm not sure which is better.


Answer:  Good accountant ;D.  And yes, parts of the Tax Code are easier to understand than these NCAA regulations.  At least my accountant can give better explanations than the people at the NCAA...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on September 26, 2006, 12:54:06 PM

Yes, I'm sure "tangling with a male practice player" was the definitive reason for breaking that girl's leg.  I doubt it would have happened if she tangled with a female practice player.


There might be a need for more regulation and tracking of male pracitce players, but it shouldn't be a strict as it has become. 


The NCAA.... it's FANtastic.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Trailer Dog on September 30, 2006, 02:41:01 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on October 13, 2005, 03:33:41 PM

The UAA schools share an academic philosophy that very few other D3 schools share (perhaps limited to CalTech and Johns Hopkins): the national research-oriented university.


Would you label the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Chicago as "national research-oriented universit(ies)"?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on September 30, 2006, 10:00:25 AM
Yes, MIT is also a member of the Assoc of Amer Universities.  MIT, CalTech, and Hopkins are the only private, non-UAA, D3 members of the AAU (although Hopkins was a founding member)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 30, 2006, 10:01:08 AM
Quote from: Trailer Dog on September 30, 2006, 02:41:01 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on October 13, 2005, 03:33:41 PM

The UAA schools share an academic philosophy that very few other D3 schools share (perhaps limited to CalTech and Johns Hopkins): the national research-oriented university.


Would you label the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Chicago as "national research-oriented universit(ies)"?

UAA History (http://www.uaa.rochester.edu/UAA_Background.html#History)

As CWRU70 said, Johns Hopkins has been a member.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 03, 2006, 12:36:37 PM
The University of Chicago is not only a national research-oriented university, it is the national research-oriented university. The U of C's list of 79 Nobel Prize laureates easily outdistances that of any other American university, and the school is considered to be America's pacesetter in physics and economics as far as research institutions are concerned. It's also highly-renowned on the graduate level in the fields of literary criticism, sociology, and archaelogy. Grad students outnumber undergrads 2 to 1 on the U of C campus.

The University of Chicago is where the first self-sustaining nuclear reaction was conducted (aptly for this website's purposes, that first nuclear pile was constructed under the stands of the U of C's football field). I don't know how much more quintessential an example of a research university at work you can get than that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 03, 2006, 01:55:31 PM

While I can't provide the detail that Sager can, spending even an hour on the campus of MIT will convince just about anyone of their "research" credentials.  I was a doubter myself until my first trip there.

I was amazed at the quality and production of the "other" schools at MIT.  They have one of the finest history programs in the country, for one.  I'm not sure of their graduate to undergraduate ratio, but it's certainly much higher than any other school I've been around.

The least "research oriented" school in the UAA is Brandeis and it is certainly no slouch.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 04, 2006, 12:37:05 AM
The D-III Championships Committee meeting (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/newsdetail?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/Association+Updates/Division+III+Championships+Committee+tackles+emerging+issues+-+9-22-06+update) on September 17-19 discussed some interesting issues:

1)  the possibility of increasing multiyear agreements with championship hosts  (to encourage capital improvements to the championship site, maybe even a new Luxury Suite/Skybox for the D3football crew in Salem,VA  ;D ).

2) the growing difficulty of accommodating institutions with written policies against competition on days of religious observance.

3)  a desire by some institutions to obtain automatic qualification to championships through single-sport conferences.  (The Illini-Badger and the New England football Conference are the only two remaining that were "grandfathered" in football  in 1998.  The Freedom FC has disbanded and the Atlantic Coast Football Conference has never had enough members since its formation.)

4)  whether AQ might be granted to single-sport conferences in specific situations (for example, for emerging or geographically isolated sports).

Now that is sufficiently vague to prompt much speculation, but the Committee Report will be published on October 9th.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 04, 2006, 02:30:42 AM
The ACFC missed the grandfathering deadline. Number of members is not a factor.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 04, 2006, 08:54:40 AM
So the alternative for the New England football teams is a Pool B scenario?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 04, 2006, 11:41:45 AM
No, they could align under the MASCAC banner or any existing multi-sport conference or any new multi-sport conference, just not as a new single-sport conference.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 04, 2006, 01:12:06 PM

Oh, ok.  I guess I mis-understood what Ralph was saying.  I thought they were considering getting rid of the single-sport conferences altogether, even the grandfathered ones.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 04, 2006, 04:36:57 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on October 04, 2006, 01:12:06 PM

Oh, ok.  I guess I mis-understood what Ralph was saying.  I thought they were considering getting rid of the single-sport conferences altogether, even the grandfathered ones.

No, no!  They are apparently still in good standing as conferences, and Pat was right about the ACFC missing the deadline.  (In 1998, I was just trying to get used to the fact that the (NAIA) TIAA was now the D3 ASC, and I had not discovered D3Hoops.com!)

I am still trying to figure out what new geographically isolated single sport conferences they mean.  Men's and Women's Lacrosse?  Men's and Women's Water Polo?  Men's Volleyball?  Men's and Women's Golf?  Emerging Sports like Women's Rugby?   ???
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on October 04, 2006, 07:16:07 PM
Quote from: Trailer Dog on September 30, 2006, 02:41:01 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on October 13, 2005, 03:33:41 PM

The UAA schools share an academic philosophy that very few other D3 schools share (perhaps limited to CalTech and Johns Hopkins): the national research-oriented university.


Would you label the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Chicago as "national research-oriented universit(ies)"?

Chicago is in the UAA, Trailer Dog.  I must have forgotten about MIT when I posted this a year ago.  I can't name all of the D3 schools off the top of my head, even if I might like to be able to do so.  :) Anyway, I stand by my original assertion that very few D3 schools outside the UAA are national research-oriented universities.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 04, 2006, 07:57:09 PM
A little academic trivia,

Name a land grant college in New York?  in Massachusetts?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on October 04, 2006, 08:22:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 04, 2006, 07:57:09 PM
A little academic trivia,

Name a land grant college in New York?  in Massachusetts?

I don't know about MA, but I believe Cornell, at least part of it, is a land-grant institution (as strange as that might be for an Ivy venue).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 04, 2006, 09:04:35 PM
Cornell!

A hint for Massachusetts; it is D3.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on October 04, 2006, 09:11:53 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 04, 2006, 09:04:35 PM
Cornell!

A hint for Massachusetts; it is D3.

MIT (but I confess I looked it up   :-[) and UMass (I looked that up, as well  :-[).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 10, 2006, 10:30:03 AM
The October Commissioners Newsletter (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/commissioners_update.pdf) has 2 interesting items.

Microsoft Streets and Trips will not be used for determining championship criteria in 2006.

The new criteria will be found in www.mappoint.msn.com.  An appeal process is available for those institutions that fall out by the change in critieria.  See page 5.

The previously noted change to allow in-region apply to "Membership Regions" as defined by Bylaw 4.12.1.1 is also mentioned.

The NCAA announces the release of the Men's Golf Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/golf/2007/2007_d3_m_golf_champ_handbook.pdf).  One change has occurred in the Championships for Men's Golf.  Men's Golf will go to the Pools System with 24 conferences getting a Pool A bid.  There will be 8 Pool B teams and 3 Pool C teams. This is a big expansion of the championship.

Now we southern and western teams and conferences can sound like the CCIW and WIAC basketball "snobs" when our 5th place team doesn't get a bid that has gone to some AQ conference!   ;D ;D :D ;D :) 8) ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 10, 2006, 10:37:47 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 10, 2006, 10:30:03 AM
The October Commissioners Newsletter (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/commissioners_update.pdf) has 2 interesting items.

Microsoft Streets and Trips will not be used for determining championship criteria in 2006.

The new criteria will be found in www.mappoint.msn.com.  An appeal process is available for those institutions that fall out by the change in critieria.  See page 5.

It doesn't help the most notorious near-miss under the old Microsoft Streets & Trips, Wheaton and Calvin. The two schools are 205 miles apart according to the new software that the NCAA is using.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 10, 2006, 10:56:55 AM

Has anyone actually tried to measure from door to door of the basketball facilities at these "near miss" schools?  Sometimes that small distance difference could actually make a difference, especially if the campus is spread out.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 10, 2006, 11:12:51 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 10, 2006, 10:30:03 AM
The October Commissioners Newsletter (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/commissioners_update.pdf) has 2 interesting items.

Microsoft Streets and Trips will not be used for determining championship criteria in 2006.

The new criteria will be found in www.mappoint.msn.com.  An appeal process is available for those institutions that fall out by the change in critieria.  See page 5.

The previously noted change to allow in-region apply to "Membership Regions" as defined by Bylaw 4.12.1.1 is also mentioned.

The NCAA announces the release of the Men's Golf Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/golf/2007/2007_d3_m_golf_champ_handbook.pdf).  One change has occurred in the Championships for Men's Golf.  Men's Golf will go to the Pools System with 24 conferences getting a Pool A bid.  There will be 8 Pool B teams and 3 Pool C teams. This is a big expansion of the championship.

Now we southern and western teams and conferences can sound like the CCIW and WIAC basketball "snobs" when our 5th place team doesn't get a bid that has gone to some AQ conference!   ;D ;D :D ;D :) 8) ;)


With only 3 pool C bids, forget the 5th place team - you're gonna have some mighty upset SECOND place teams! ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on October 10, 2006, 11:17:37 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 10, 2006, 10:30:03 AM
The NCAA announces the release of the Men's Golf Handbook (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/golf/2007/2007_d3_m_golf_champ_handbook.pdf).  One change has occurred in the Championships for Men's Golf.  Men's Golf will go to the Pools System with 24 conferences getting a Pool A bid.  There will be 8 Pool B teams and 3 Pool C teams. This is a big expansion of the championship.

Now we southern and western teams and conferences can sound like the CCIW and WIAC basketball "snobs" when our 5th place team doesn't get a bid that has gone to some AQ conference!   ;D ;D :D ;D :) 8) ;)

Ralph, tennis is also switching to the AQ system.  Say goodbye to tennis teams that used to get in with brutal schedules and records around .500.  Some of those tennis schools are also going to have to change their schedules in order to play the minimum number of matches against Division III teams.  And, like golf, say goodbye to half the teams in some leagues making the tournament.

There are going to be some BRUTAL first-round tennis matches.  In the long run, though, it's a good thing.  There are entire conferences in Division III where tennis is essentially treated like a glorified club sport.  The AQ should motivate some of the "better" teams/athletic departments in those conferences to take the sport more seriously and it should bolster their recruiting.  It has definitely had that effect in other sports like lacrosse.  Maybe it will also end the stupidity of some conferences playing their women's dual match schedules in the fall when the NCAA Championships are in the spring ...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 10, 2006, 11:27:20 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on October 10, 2006, 10:56:55 AM

Has anyone actually tried to measure from door to door of the basketball facilities at these "near miss" schools?  Sometimes that small distance difference could actually make a difference, especially if the campus is spread out.

The legislation simply reads "campus to campus" as far as I can tell, so it's reasonable to deduce that the NCAA uses each school's mailing address (which tends to be the administration building in the case of most schools).

In the case of Wheaton and Calvin, their respective campuses aren't large enough for it to make any difference. In fact, given the layouts of the two campuses, the distance is actually slightly greater in each case if you measure gym-to-gym rather than mailing-address-to-mailing-address.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 13, 2006, 04:34:45 PM

I don't remember where the rule stands at this point.  I know D1 practice opens tonight (wooo 7pm madness, can't miss it), but does d3 still have to wait until the 15th or do we get to start tonight too?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 13, 2006, 05:48:54 PM
Still the 15th, my understanding.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ronk on October 14, 2006, 12:11:17 AM
Maybe D1 gets a dispensation for religious reason since Oct 15 is a Sunday this year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 14, 2006, 02:31:09 PM

I know there is something about "the friday closest to the 15th" but I'm pretty sure that only applies to d1.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on November 08, 2006, 09:45:59 AM
The University of South Dakota recommends a move to D-1 classification; Augustana (Sioux Falls, SD) will make their recommendation by mid-December.  (http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061108/SPORTS/111080014/1002)

This effectively will disband the D-2 power conference the NCC, as its only members left may be St. Cloud State, U of Minnesota-Duluth, Minnesota State-Mankato, and the U of Nebraska Omaha.  These schools all have D-1 hockey, but have more scholarships for football than the other schools in the immediate region (the NSIC conference), and have indicated they don't want to cut scholarships.  That likely means the following:

1.) Add additional schools to the NCC to keep it afloat:  possible, but geographically there aren't many options other than the DAC (NAIA) schools, and the ones who have left the NAIA have entered the NSIC, or they would need to recruit D3 schools to make a jump, which could affect the UMAC, MIAC, IIAC or WIAC.  The NSIC schools have no incentive to force a move to a higher-cost conference than their own.

2.) Move to a different conference within D-2, but that would drastically increase travel costs and could cut revenue (who in MN cares about Pittsburg State (KS)?  a UND-SCSU game would be much better attended!).

3.) Move to D-1 themselves, which would increase their costs dramatically and could be a recruiting boon for D-3 schools (as MN "cusp" athletes would likely go D3, similar to the boon that SJU received when NDSU went D-1).

Interesting things afloat in the "land of the giants"...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on December 01, 2006, 09:44:28 AM
As an update to the D-2 happenings in the Upper Midwest:

USD has announced their intent to move to the D1-AA level, following North Dakota, South Dakota State, North Dakota State and Northern Colorado in recent years from the North Central Conference.  Augustana (SD) has announced their intent to join the NSIC, which has quietly collected D3 and NAIA dropouts Upper Iowa and University of Mary. 

In today's St. Cloud Times, it was announced that the North Central Conference is making plans to fold. (http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061201/SPORTS/111300065/1002)  That leaves Minnesota-Duluth, Minnesota State-Mankato, and St. Cloud State and Nebraska-Omaha without a conference.  UMD, MSUM, SCSU have asked for info about the NSIC; UNO has asked for admission into the MIAA.

WHAT THIS MEANS:  There will be fewer D2 scholarships in the Upper Midwest (though, in fairness, there will be more D1 scholarships in the Upper Midwest).  When NDSU decided to go D1-AA, several of their players found their ways to D3 schools; with another two going that way (UND & USD), that could be the same result.  Furthermore, there are fewer scholarships in the NSIC than in the current NCC-- that means SCSU, UMD and MSUM will have 6 fewer equivalences to entice kids to go play football for them.  Those 6 kids could be significant contributors to WIAC/MIAC/IIAC/UMAC schools-- thus, this could be a boon to the Upper Midwest D3 squads.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 08, 2006, 08:43:57 PM
There was more heat than light concerning the graduate transfer rule in D1.  The NCAA News (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2006/Association+Updates/Few+take+advantage+of+graduate-transfer+rule+-+12-07-06+update) even has a feature on it today.  (Please go to the front page of www.ncaaonline.org if my hyperlink did not work for you.)

I am watching the UMass/Montana game on ESPN2.  UMass RB #19 Tim Washington graduated from Syracuse last year. and is participating in the "D1-Semifinal".

He will have the opportunity that very few Syracuse football players will ever have...to play in a national collegiate football championship playoff game. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on December 08, 2006, 09:23:16 PM
Bur in 1959 Syracuse was the putative national champion without participating in a playoff.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 11, 2006, 09:12:07 AM

The bigger question is why one would choose UMASS for grad school.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 13, 2006, 04:27:49 PM

Check out the bar on the right side (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/news/story?id=2693442&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab5pos2) for some comments on an issue we've discussed here in the past.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 13, 2006, 05:36:20 PM
Nice find, Hoops!  +k to you.

She was a bit wishy-washy, but I sensed that she didn't favor the ban. ;) ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on December 13, 2006, 05:37:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 08, 2006, 08:43:57 PM
There was more heat than light concerning the graduate transfer rule in D1.  The NCAA News (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2006/Association+Updates/Few+take+advantage+of+graduate-transfer+rule+-+12-07-06+update) even has a feature on it today.  (Please go to the front page of www.ncaaonline.org if my hyperlink did not work for you.)

I am watching the UMass/Montana game on ESPN2.  UMass RB #19 Tim Washington graduated from Syracuse last year. and is participating in the "D1-Semifinal".

He will have the opportunity that very few Syracuse football players will ever have...to play in a national collegiate football championship playoff game. ;)

I believe the Florida Gators have a Defensive Back (Smith maybe) who transferred from Utah based on this rule.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 15, 2006, 09:07:55 AM
Quote from: The Roop on December 15, 2006, 06:38:05 AM
I can't believe I'm going to say this but there's a potential situation brewing in Wisconsin that the NCAA may wish to take a look at. It hasn't been approved yet but a committee is being formed to take a serious look at it. It calls for free tuition at any UW school if you promise to remain in state for 10 years after graduation. The theory is that the increased income tax revenue would offset the tuition costs.

What about the cost of the bureaucracy required to enforce the provision ?? What if your employer transfers you out of state prior to the 10 years. Would your tuition then be pro-rated or would you be on the hook for 100% of it. What does this do to the WIAC. It's not their fault because they didn't think of the idea but if passed I think their days as D3s are ended. Granted it wouldn't be an athletic scholarship but it would give them an unfair advantage in recruiting over private schools.

I'm not a big fan of governments attempting to spend their way into prosperity because it rarely ever works out as planned. Despite the good intentions I think this is one that needs to be voted down. Wisconsin and UW-Milwaukee probably don't benefit much from it but Green Bay and Parkside would, so it's not just a WIAC/D3 matter.

This is from The Roop over on the MWC board.  I don't see it as a potential problem, but it seemed like something we could at least discuss here.

It just seems too general to affect NCAA athletics.  Massachusetts gives some pretty nice grant (see: free) money to encourage kids to stay in state for college and this money applies for either public or private schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on December 15, 2006, 12:45:41 PM
Hoopsfan, this is a big issue in the upper midwest, I'm afraid.  Wisconsin is getting such brain-drain after graduation they have resorted to pulling people in this way.  Considering Chicago and the Twin Cities are each within 30 minutes of the Wisconsin border, the possibility of a great number of individuals from major metro areas taking advantage of this program is huge, considering that there has already been tuition reciprocity between Minnesota in Wisconsin (there are already a LOT of MN students that go to UW-XXXX for school and return to Mpls. afterward, and this would only give a greater incentive to get into UW schools).

From a NCAA standpoint, it would get around D3 regulations because athletes would not be treated differently than other individuals.  However, the St. Norbert's and upper Midwest D3s should be concerned as the possibility to go to college and graduate without outstanding loans makes these schools far more desirable.  While there will still be a need for private colleges in this area, if you were an athlete thinking of playing at, say, UST in St. Paul and be forced to pay $10k per year, or UW-RF 30 minutes away for free, the Wisconsin program is mighty enticing.

All that said, I don't think Wisconsin will do this on a broad scale-- I think they will limit it on GPA and test score requirements and keep it to a high level of individuals, who would be giving up thousands in income after graduation by staying in Milwaukee instead of moving to Chicago (The U of MN is doing something similar, but limiting to income levels and eliminating the stay requirements).  So it will help but not make a huge difference at the end of the day.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 15, 2006, 12:52:35 PM


I'm sorry, I can't resist; it's too perfect.



I never thought I'd hear the words "Brain Drain" and Wisconsin in the same sentence.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: foul_language on December 20, 2006, 03:44:19 PM
Wisconsin could keep graduates if it a) had decent jobs that, 2)paid decent money. Wisconsin always seems to put bandaids in reasonable proximity to the problem. Or not. After all, this is the state that Tommy Thompson drove into the ground, escaped, and had the nerve to come back hinting at another run for political office. With our luck, participating students will spend their ten years after graduation on Wisconsin welfare.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 27, 2006, 03:31:18 PM
Scottie Doug, the Maryville TN fan, posted these hyperlinks concerning D3 football.  The writer is Marcus Fitzsimmons at The (Maryville TN) Daily Times.

(On the occasions that I have read this paper, I think that they do a very good job of covering D3 in their part of the country, especially Maryville TN and the GSAC.)

This four-part series covers squad size, the economics of D3 vs D1, ...

Going big: D-III football coaches make decisions on team size (http://www.thedailytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061227/SPORTS/612270301)

Dollars & directions: D-III and D-I schools travel different paths (http://www.thedailytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061227/SPORTS/612270306)

Commentary...I think that Mr Fitzsimmons is using publicly stated numbers on football expenses, but the cost allocations may not necessarily reflect the discount rate that athletes receive from their respective institutions.

Thanks, scottiedoug!  +1K  ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on December 28, 2006, 08:44:23 AM
Ralph I think his last name is Fitzsimmons (not Fitzgerald), and yes he is a great writer for D3 sports!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 28, 2006, 10:50:12 AM
Quote from: wilburt on December 28, 2006, 08:44:23 AM
Ralph I think his last name is Fitzsimmons (not Fitzgerald), and yes he is a great writer for D3 sports!
Thanks!  My bad!

+1 Wilburt, and Happy New Year!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 28, 2006, 11:01:41 AM
A friend asked me to comment on the "discount rate".  The "discount rate" is a slang term for the amount of institutional aid in the form of scholarships, merit-based and finanacial need-based, that the institution gives.

If a school charges $30K in tuition but gives $15K in aid, then the discount rate is 50%.

I will apprecitate comments from other posters, but I think that the $7M football budget must include some capital expendtures, such as building and stadium expenditures.

For example in big round numbers, CNU tuition is $10K and there are 150 football players.  If they received 100% (legal) financial, that is an expenditure of $1.5M.

...unless Head Coach Kelchner's new contract included a $1.2M bonus for the USAC Co-Championship in 2006.  :o  ;D  :D   :)  8)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 28, 2006, 11:06:49 AM
Third installment on the D3 article from the Maryville TN Daily Times. (http://www.thedailytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061228/SPORTS/612270318)

Thanks to Scottie Doug! :)

At the bottom of the article, he includes the hyperlink to D3hoops.com!

Nice touch! ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 29, 2006, 01:09:00 AM
This is a great series, Ralph. Thanks for linking it here.

One small correction to the third installment: The University of Wisconsin system is not composed solely of D2 and D3 schools outside of the Big Ten institution in Madison. UW-Milwaukee and UW-Green Bay are D1 schools as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: scottiedoug on December 29, 2006, 12:04:08 PM
I might have figured Ralph would beat me to linking the Daily Times articles to this board!  Can't get ahead of that guy!

I know that at Maryville, at least, everybody (or nearly everybody) gets a "discount."  Different sizes.  Maryville is trying to provide a high quality (and "expensive") liberal arts education to young people from the middle and working classes, including an intentional focus on first generation college kids.  Since a lot of kids come to Maryville thinking they will play some sport, it is true that a lot of athletes do not pay full freight. And many do not stay involved in intermural sports, but they do not lose their "discount" for not playing.

It would be interesting and difficult to learn if there is consistency among schools as to whether the athletics budget in any way gets charged for the "discounts" given to athletes.

And here is the link to the final article:

http://www.thedailytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061229/SPORTS/612290323

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: batteredbard on January 02, 2007, 04:47:11 PM
The error regarding the UW system has been fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Somehow I misplaced two campi.

Unfortunately the graphic listing each school in the Great South (GSAC) and USA South as well as selected others (UW-W, Mount Union, UT, W&J, etc) couldn't be posted to the web. It provided a breakdown of each school's spendng on athletics, on football, enrollment, tuition, number of athletes, number of football players, the precentage of the students who were athletes and percentage of student body playing football.

The numbers were obtained from each school's Title IX filing with the Dept of Education, Office of Secondary Education. If you want to look up any school's 2005-06 numbers the site is
www.ope.ed.gov/athletics

Again thanks to those who have read and commented through postings or via e-mail. And thanks again to the coaches and ADs quoted and not who took the time before the holidays to do phone interviews or met me in their office when they could have been christmas shopping.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 02, 2007, 10:36:14 PM
BatteredBard, thanks for the series!  +1 ;)

If you are permitted, please post the hyperlinks to similar articles of general interest to us D3 fans! :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 04, 2007, 01:19:58 PM
Interesting news blurb on the NAIA board (http://naia.cstv.com/member-services/RMC/RMC_update_current.htm) under the Regional Mnagement Committee update.

QuoteNCAA President Myles Brand and members of the NCAA staff.  The NAIA national office has met with representatives of the NCAA on several occasions in the last two years in an effort to maintain open lines of communication.  In this most recent meeting, conversation centered on discussions ongoing in the NCAA about proposed legislative changes and modifications to the membership application process in NCAA Division II, and consideration of a possible subdivision in Division III or perhaps a new NCAA Division IV.  The NAIA staff has taken pains throughout these conversations to emphasize that membership decisions in the NCAA cannot be made in a vacuum, without consideration for the implications for NAIA membership, if the two organizations are to remain true to each association's stated mutual interest in a collegial NAIA-NCAA relationship.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 04, 2007, 05:36:01 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 04, 2007, 01:19:58 PM
Interesting news blurb on the NAIA board (http://naia.cstv.com/member-services/RMC/RMC_update_current.htm) under the Regional Mnagement Committee update.

QuoteNCAA President Myles Brand and members of the NCAA staff.  The NAIA national office has met with representatives of the NCAA on several occasions in the last two years in an effort to maintain open lines of communication.  In this most recent meeting, conversation centered on discussions ongoing in the NCAA about proposed legislative changes and modifications to the membership application process in NCAA Division II, and consideration of a possible subdivision in Division III or perhaps a new NCAA Division IV.  The NAIA staff has taken pains throughout these conversations to emphasize that membership decisions in the NCAA cannot be made in a vacuum, without consideration for the implications for NAIA membership, if the two organizations are to remain true to each association's stated mutual interest in a collegial NAIA-NCAA relationship.

Interesting ... and cryptic.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 04, 2007, 07:27:32 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 04, 2007, 05:36:01 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 04, 2007, 01:19:58 PM
Interesting news blurb on the NAIA board (http://naia.cstv.com/member-services/RMC/RMC_update_current.htm) under the Regional Mnagement Committee update.

QuoteNCAA President Myles Brand and members of the NCAA staff.  The NAIA national office has met with representatives of the NCAA on several occasions in the last two years in an effort to maintain open lines of communication.  In this most recent meeting, conversation centered on discussions ongoing in the NCAA about proposed legislative changes and modifications to the membership application process in NCAA Division II, and consideration of a possible subdivision in Division III or perhaps a new NCAA Division IV.  The NAIA staff has taken pains throughout these conversations to emphasize that membership decisions in the NCAA cannot be made in a vacuum, without consideration for the implications for NAIA membership, if the two organizations are to remain true to each association's stated mutual interest in a collegial NAIA-NCAA relationship.

Interesting ... and cryptic.

Indeed. What does all this mean? Details needed from the Indianapolis suits, I think.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 04, 2007, 07:30:40 PM
It sound to me like the NAIA wants the NCAA to build a Berlin Wall to keep the NAIA schools from fleeing to the West.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 04, 2007, 07:34:37 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 04, 2007, 07:30:40 PM
It sound to me like the NAIA wants the NCAA to build a Berlin Wall to keep the NAIA schools from fleeing to the West.

Or is a merger pending?  :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 04, 2007, 08:36:16 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 04, 2007, 07:34:37 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 04, 2007, 07:30:40 PM
It sound to me like the NAIA wants the NCAA to build a Berlin Wall to keep the NAIA schools from fleeing to the West.

Or is a merger pending?  :o
Why merge?

The cream will move to the NCAA if they wish.  The dregs will not clear the provisional status, and the NAIA is losing the heart of the association.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 04, 2007, 09:32:44 PM
Division IV? Hmmm....

I really think two divisions make sense, I and III. Either you shell out for scholarships, or you don't. Make your choice, and live with it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 05, 2007, 09:24:12 AM
Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2007, 09:32:44 PM
Division IV? Hmmm....

I really think two divisions make sense, I and III. Either you shell out for scholarships, or you don't. Make your choice, and live with it.

Right on.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach C on January 11, 2007, 02:38:25 PM
Going back a day or so, i just wanted to note that there are several differing methodologies as to how discount rate is calculated.  The National Association of College and University Business Officers has a formula, Noel-Lezitz, the nations largest enrollment management consulting firm has a formula and the NCAA has the D3 formula.

Each takes into account both need based and merit based aid as it consideres the real price that students pay for a college education. 

The average for larger (over 2000) private 4 year schools is in the 40% range.

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 26, 2007, 02:22:29 PM

Why is it that the only time D3 schools make ESPN's headlines it's for stuff like this (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2743708)?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 27, 2007, 02:15:41 AM
That's all it cares about.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PrideFan1986 on January 27, 2007, 02:30:02 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 26, 2007, 02:22:29 PM

Why is it that the only time D3 schools make ESPN's headlines it's for stuff like this (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2743708)?


Other than no scholarships i think that is why alot of players dont want to go to a D3 school and play. There is no BIG media publicity.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on January 27, 2007, 10:44:55 AM
This type of thing gets coverage because it is sensationalism at its best.

It attracts readers and sells papers and there for gives advertisements more exposure...

I don't think there are more incidents like this then there were 20 -30 years ago, I think that they all just get covered today.  Years ago, there was some respect from the media to someones personal life.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PrideFan1986 on January 27, 2007, 10:50:00 AM
Quote from: Bob Maxwell on January 27, 2007, 10:44:55 AM
This type of thing gets coverage because it is sensationalism at its best.

It attracts readers and sells papers and there for gives advertisements more exposure...

I don't think there are more incidents like this then there were 20 -30 years ago, I think that they all just get covered today.  Years ago, there was some respect from the media to someones personal life.


It really seems that the only time media shows up is if it is with someones personal stuff. I totally agree with that statement.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on January 28, 2007, 08:55:27 AM
back to the original theme of this thread...

I think that D-III is on solid ground... and if anything it will pick up NAIA schools looking to move to the NCAA, and some D-II schools who will move back to D-III after the upcoming blow up in D-IA over football.

I think that D-IA will cause a change within all of D-I becasue of the football money... and that will cause a lot of trickle down into D-IAA, D-IAAA (non-scholarship football) & D-I (non-football).  This will impact the member ship in D-II which may cause some of those schools to rethink and move to D-III or if they are football schools to D-IAA.

I don't have any evidence either way on this... just a gut feeling from conversations I have with counterparts at other schools.

It will all be driven by the D-IA football dollars...  It will be interesting to watch.

D-III is on solid ground!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 28, 2007, 10:32:39 AM
Why shouldn't the top major football colleges (say - very roughly about 80 colleges) opt out of NCAA football (and only football), take their money and play in their separate football sandbox?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on January 28, 2007, 01:37:23 PM
That may very well happen... but I think if it or something like it does, they will still be in a box owned by the NCAA... as they will need a place for their other sports to play too.  And while they may be able to go it alone in football, they need the NCAA frame work for their other sports.

each school has say 500 athletes... only 120 of them play football.  I don' tthink that the presidents will allow them to just leave the other 380 out in the cold.  And I don't think the NCAA will let them stay with out the football dollars.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 28, 2007, 05:40:42 PM
Why not non-NCAA football and NCAA all other sports for a given college?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on January 28, 2007, 05:49:34 PM
It could happen that way... but I think the NCAA would want its piece of the football money pie.  Or they may not let the non-football sports stay.

You never know what will end up happening, but I think its only a few years away... at most.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on January 29, 2007, 10:38:52 AM
I see a proposal for a cap on D-III membership in the proposed legislation for this years convention.  Cam would be 459 members... it speaks directly to the trickle of NAIA schools to NCAA D-III.

Interseting... does anyone know if it was approved?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 29, 2007, 10:51:40 AM

As far as I know it wasn't.  Although I seem to remember something about it being tabled or sent back for further study, etc.  I'm sure Pat or Ralph can describe it better.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on January 29, 2007, 08:15:54 PM
That proposal was withdrawn by the sponsors, the NCAC, after some other growth limiting legislation went through.  There is an association-wide task force that has been created to look at Division III and what impact a membership cap, sub-divison, or creation of a new division would have on the entire NCAA.  There will most likely be some report from that task force by next January's convention.  It will be a huge issue and there will be a lot of discussion about how to manage DIII's growth.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 01, 2007, 12:23:27 PM
Quote from: frank uible on January 28, 2007, 10:32:39 AM
Why shouldn't the top major football colleges (say - very roughly about 80 colleges) opt out of NCAA football (and only football), take their money and play in their separate football sandbox?

They already do!  That's what the BCS is for.   The NCAA's revenue comes principally from the D-1 Men's basketball tournament.  They make a little money from Football (relatively a small amount), and most of the money they make is returned to conferences (the Big 10, Pac 10 and SEC make the lion's share of this).

So knowing that, why should they fund D3?  Or better yet, why should they cut their take to develop a D4? 

The thing I don't get is that, despite the relative non-growth (note-- I didn't say shrinking, and I did say relative) of D2, the NCAA's expenditures have increased toward D2 while they have stayed the same and even gone down to D3.  Does that make sense?

I don't see a merger between the NCAA and NAIA.  The NCAA wants the alternative for antitrust reasons.  The NAIA wants to stop the leak in its basin of schools leaving to join (primarily) D3.  But a hard cap is not a good idea-- the slow matriculation process is bad enough itself-- I think it's hard to tell a school like Northwestern (MN) that, "you may have won your conference, but you have no post-season chance because your school was slow in getting out of the NAIA."  While the slow-entry process is to the school, the kids are the ones paying for it (regardless of whether or not they would have had any success in that).  I don't like that at all.

The hard cap may be used to keep the playoff ratio intact-- whatever it is now (6.5 to 1 or something like that), so as not to need to increase and add more teams to playoffs-- thus adding costs to the Division that the NCAA bigwigs would likely not be happy about.

The real mess here is between D2 and D1 football.  D2 has a mesh between the haves and have-nots-- where the haves want more scholarships for football (because they have the revenue to afford it).  Historically, a school like North Dakota State did well in D2 because they were the big-ticket game in Fargo (with apologies to Concordia).  But a school like Southwest State MN struggled to get attendance over 2,000 while NDSU was drawing 12,000.    Those extra spots allowed NDSU to afford the extra 12 scholies and thereby be more successful (on average) in D2.

But NDSU, UND, SDSU, USD made the jump to D-1AA, so the have's are starting to filter into D-1, leaving the remnants of have's and the have-nots.  The have-nots are beginning to gain the majority in D2 and can take control of legislation- as a result, you'll see more initiatives to limit football scholarships on a divisional scale-- see the dispersal of the NCC after the departure to D1, leaving SCSU, UMD, MSUM, and Aug to join the NSIC, a conference that allows a maximum of 12 fewer scholarships for football than the NCC did.

Couple the D2 problem with the lack of revenue from D-1 football and you have a complex problem.  Is it possible the D2 issue will work itself out on its own?  Sure.  But where do those marginalized go-- are the D2 have's essentially forced to make a choice between a struggle to remake itself in D1-AA or resign to a "lesser" status in D2?  Will D3 absorb these lower-scholarship D2 schools and make them into a new division?

These task forces need to look NCAA-wide to figure things out-- looking at one division only will not result in much assistance, because splitting D3 into two, without the NCAA agreeing to kick in more costs, means half as much benefit for the current members.  Nobody wants that.  And the past D3 task force was required to "do no harm to the current structure (Meaning D2)".  How can you have a substantive task force that does not have the ability to do anything substantive?

So I think the BCS drives this beast for reform-- it needs to come top down because there is no incentive for the big guys to listen to the little guys (D3 allows D1 to be an all-encompassing entity about the love of the game, and not just the big business it is in Minneapolis, Madison, Ann Arbor, South Bend et al. and that's about it.  Why else would they even bother to keep D3 around?).



 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 01, 2007, 04:34:53 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 01, 2007, 12:23:27 PM
And the past D3 task force was required to "do no harm to the current structure (Meaning D2)".  How can you have a substantive task force that does not have the ability to do anything substantive?


That's the issue.  I mean if you have large d2 programs making money, enough money that they want increased football scholarships, you "encourage" them to move up to D1-AA.  They can probably float the burden of the D1 requirements for other sports.

To me the more useful idea would be to expand the d1-AA idea across the board, where schools can opt out of the full d1 requirements for whatever sport they can't afford.

But again, this would require doing away with d2, having the schools that support full or partial rosters with scholarships move up, while other schools move down or to NAIA.

I agree, that statement is the key.  Changes have to be made and they can't be done effectively with the current mandate.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 01, 2007, 04:59:39 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 01, 2007, 04:34:53 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 01, 2007, 12:23:27 PM
And the past D3 task force was required to "do no harm to the current structure (Meaning D2)".  How can you have a substantive task force that does not have the ability to do anything substantive?


That's the issue.  I mean if you have large d2 programs making money, enough money that they want increased football scholarships, you "encourage" them to move up to D1-AA.  They can probably float the burden of the D1 requirements for other sports.

To me the more useful idea would be to expand the d1-AA idea across the board, where schools can opt out of the full d1 requirements for whatever sport they can't afford.

But again, this would require doing away with d2, having the schools that support full or partial rosters with scholarships move up, while other schools move down or to NAIA.

I agree, that statement is the key.  Changes have to be made and they can't be done effectively with the current mandate.

I like your idea of expansion of the D1-AA concept.  Essentially, D2 could become D1-AA (or vice versa).  That is already the case in some fields, as schools like UM-Duluth, St. Cloud State, MN-State Mankato, Lake Superior State, Michigan Tech are already D-1 hockey schools, but D2 in everything else.

That, in turn, leaves the D2 have-nots lumped with D3.  Either the NCAA creates a new division for this (say, maximum of 12 scholarships for football-- remember that scholarships are "equivalences," meaning a coach can spread that aid out over several athletes if they wish, not just a 1-1 ratio), or the NCAA forces these schools to go no-scholly and split D3 somehow (which I doubt because a certain amount of non-need based aid to athletes is desireable from a policy standpoint, and splitting apart a 500-some school division, though likely necessary, would be difficult).  If the number of scholarships required is low enough, I can see some D3 schools considering moving to such a hybrid division so they can further their missions-- perhaps some public schools would appreciate the ability to give a few non-need based aid to athletes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 01, 2007, 05:59:23 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 01, 2007, 04:59:39 PM
That is already the case in some fields, as schools like UM-Duluth, St. Cloud State, MN-State Mankato, Lake Superior State, Michigan Tech are already D-1 hockey schools, but D2 in everything else.

Don't forget d3 member Colorado College's d1 hockey team either.  They would be very disappointed in you.


I think that this plan would help in so many ways.  A lot of d2 schools are d2 because meeting the seating and attendance guidelines for D1 is impossible, but there are a number that could do it financially.  An expanded D1-AA would allow for this to happen, especially if you allowed the schools to choose which sports they went full d1 in.

You would have nearly 500 schools in d3, but then I see this as a distinct advantage.  Sure, you're creating somewhat of a greater expense having to provide for d1aa playoffs in extra sports, but at the same time you're creating this giant, entirely amateur, non-scholarship division.

I think a tournament close to the current ratio (let's say 96 teams to make the numbers work out well) would be a huge draw.  Now you've got people from everywhere rooting for these student athletes who are competing for nothing more than the love of the game.  I think a tournament of this size (which every march madness junky secretly wishes for in d1) would draw enough fan and media attention to offset the increased cost of the event.

Again, this is a totally ideal situation, but we can dream, can't we?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2007, 06:28:42 PM
In our part of the country, a non-functioning D2 really hurts D3.

The mission and vision of the schools in the D-2 Lone Star Conference and the D-2 (non-football-playing) Heartland Conference are completely different from the D3 ASC or the D1-A (Playoff Division?) Southland Conference.  One can look back at a Lone Star Conference from my college days containing Southland Conference's D1A (Southwest) Texas State, Sam Houston State, Stephen F Austin State, D2 Lone Star Conference's East Texas State (TAMU-Commerce), Tarleton State, Angelo State and Abilene Christian, and D3's Howard Payne, McMurry and Sul Ross State.  All schools seem to be happy where they are now.

We even have two functioning NAIA conferences, the Red River and the Sooner AC that function in this part of the country.

I really don't think that the Presidents of D3 want to open up the flood gates of D2 into D3.  The problem for D3 has been with the major migration from the NAIA of whole conferences, such as the LMC/NAthCon, the ASC, the NWC and the GSAC, plus selected migration of individual schools into D3 from various affiliations or de novo, as when UT-Tyler or UT-Dallas finally begin to grow their freshmen classes.

I cannot speak to the growth that has occurred in the Mid-Atlantic regions and to the north and the east.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on February 02, 2007, 09:52:16 AM
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.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 02, 2007, 10:39:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2007, 11:04:48 AM

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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 02, 2007, 12:03:20 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 02, 2007, 12:52:38 PM

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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 02, 2007, 06:38:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on February 02, 2007, 07:23:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 03, 2007, 03:19:39 AM
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. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on February 03, 2007, 11:56:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: scottiedoug on February 03, 2007, 02:29:44 PM
When did I suggest or even imply that any of the GSAC's problems were the fault of the NCAA??
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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.

I for one welcome the NAIA folks to our ranks.

D2?  Let 'em move to D1/

C
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 04, 2007, 03:47:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 04, 2007, 03:51:33 AM
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?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on February 04, 2007, 09:03:25 AM
You bureaucrats think that you can regulate your way to heaven! My solution would be to bust up the NCAA altogether, and let the marketplace control. Each college could formulate its football program entirely as it sees fit and schedule those opponents whose football actions are sufficiently attracive or at least not sufficiently obnoxious.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: scottiedoug on February 04, 2007, 02:57:33 PM
Pat:  I said that restricting expansion of D3 would make it hard for the GSAC to expand.  That is a statement of fact (or opinion?) with which I would think you agree.  I did not use the terms "blame" or "fault" in my observation.  I do not see how observing that a dog bit my aunt implies that I blame the dog.  But then you are the copy editor!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on February 04, 2007, 04:00:44 PM
Frank Uible:

What a great choice of words: "sufficiently obnoxious."  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on February 05, 2007, 12:06:18 AM
Warren: We aim to please.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on February 05, 2007, 08:09:14 AM
Pat is right when he talks about the difficulty of a larger group finding philosophical common ground.  DIII is driven by philosophy based tenets and it becomes even more important to find that common ground.  It is interesting to see folks blame the "NCAA" for things, when the divisions are all self-governing (while admittedly not self-funded) and each school has one vote.  The Presidents' Council is the most influential group there, and last I checked, those Presidents all come from DIII schools.

While it is a good thing for college athletics that so many schools wish to embrace the DIII philosophy, the division does get too big at some point.  Getting tournament play beyond certain levels (64 in most sports) stretches post-season play beyond what it can do.  This division demands that its participants be student-athletes and attend class, do projects, etc.  There has to be a balance there. 

The NCAA task force on divisions will look at a lot of different things in the next couple of years, and it may surprise people how many schools may opt for a non-national championship division.  I was surprised at that number when the idea was floated at the 2004 convention.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 05, 2007, 08:37:59 AM

I agree with Frank.  Bust up the whole thing.  If d3 were really focused on higher aims there shouldn't be national championships at all.  As much as I love them, I'd be ok with that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hoaf on February 05, 2007, 11:17:03 PM
You guys should check out the book "Reclaiming the game" talks a little about the detrimental effect athletes can have on smaller schools like Wesleyan, Williams, and Bowdoin.

Check the link: Edited to shorten link (http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Game-College-Sports-Educational/dp/0691123144/sr=1-1/qid=1170735273/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1522583-2155964?ie=UTF8&s=books)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 05, 2007, 11:49:44 PM
I clicked on the link and found that as former president of Princeton Dr Bowen has written extensively about the matters concerning higher education.  The examples of the colleges are not necessarily those that I would consider strong examples of aggressive intercollegiate activities.   I thought that this title was particlulary interesting from the late 1970's.  Performing Arts, the Economic Dilemma: a Study of Problems Common to Theater, Opera, Music and Dance by William J Baumol and William G Bowen

The title seems to convey a sense that overt competition in which there are winners and losers is bad.  We know that the NESCAC has been a very loose configuration of schools relative to most other conferences in D3.  They do not compete for the national football championship.  They seem to downplay competition and the competitive nature of their athletes even more than most of their strata of schools.

I once heard a lecture by the communications consultant, Pat Heim.  Her book, Hard Ball for Women, describes competition for women with several analogies.  Her famous phrase, "Nobody ever wins at dolls" is a classic.   Another example involves the way that girls play the game "4-Square" versus the way that boys play the game.  For boys, the game is to get to the 4th square. Alliances are formed and broken, all for the goal of getting to the fourth square.  For girls, the game is to establish a stable system of relationships.  If four girls are in the game among 10-15 other girls, the four girls will work to get their group of four to playing the game.  They will work to get out the other girls until only their clique is playing.  If there is a mis-hit, the girls will cry for a "do-over" to prolong the game.  Rather than "genderizing" this, I prefer to call the 2 behaviors blue and pink, because they are not exclusively related to gender.

It seems that these authors are talking about the impact of "pink" versus "blue" systems in competition.

One begs the question is why does Princeton even offer intercollegiate athletics and why did President Bowen not abolish it.

My other thought is that people whose primary intelligence is "academic" are jealous of those individuals whose primary intelligence is "kinesthetic".  Those social science departments that are doing research in the various intelligences are probably just wasting the universities' resources.   :D :D :D :D :) ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on February 06, 2007, 07:48:58 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 05, 2007, 11:49:44 PM
We know that the NESCAC has been a very loose configuration of schools relative to most other conferences in D3.  They do not compete for the national football championship.  They seem to downplay competition and the competitive nature of their athletes even more than most of their strata of schools.

While the NESCAC's refusal to compete in football playoffs remains a mystery, at least to me, its members certainly have no qualms about going for the "walnut and bronze" in other sports.

[Could this be a paradigm of "cognitive dissonance"? ;)]
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 06, 2007, 09:56:58 AM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on February 06, 2007, 07:48:58 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 05, 2007, 11:49:44 PM
We know that the NESCAC has been a very loose configuration of schools relative to most other conferences in D3.  They do not compete for the national football championship.  They seem to downplay competition and the competitive nature of their athletes even more than most of their strata of schools.

While the NESCAC's refusal to compete in football playoffs remains a mystery, at least to me, its members certainly have no qualms about going for the "walnut and bronze" in other sports.

[Could this be a paradigm of "cognitive dissonance"? ;)]

I think that many of those NESCAC athletes would confide, only with great reluctance, that they experienced the "pink" versus "blue" phenomenon.

However, it is okay to compete if the only people playing the game at that level are your friends, and you can re-establish the "relationship", to the exclusion of the "outsiders".  If you mess up, you just plead for a "do-over". ;D

I still think that the decision by Swarthmore to drop football was a manifestation of this and action by the "pinks" to limit the number of "blues" on the campus, by eliminating the focus of "blue" activity.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on February 06, 2007, 09:59:00 AM
Wow, this is getting rather complicated...

The comment about why Princeton even offers intercollegiate athletics is very pointed to where this conversation has gone.  It is because of the social aspect collegiate athletics offers to the quality of campus life.  Think of what your image is of college sports... not from the modern day grab all the money you can model of D-I football and basketball... but back to the 1950's when the image is of the student body and alumni in their long coats, with their school letters on their sweaters, waving a school penent while sitting together cheering on the team!!!

Some how that has been lost, but it can still be found in some areas...  and I think that some of the D-III schools and conferences have held on to it more then the large D-I super conferences.  Maybe not like in the vision I painted above, but at least the spirit of it.

Also, without championships of some level... I would feel lost.  As that is what makes the spectatorship worth while.

Just my two cents...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on February 06, 2007, 10:22:00 AM
Guess I'm a blue activity person as I much prefer competition for conference, regional and national championships...

Conferences (at all levels) and D-III work extremely well when the blue activity people who complete with in them... can also display 'pink" tendencies when it comes to the cooperative things that need to be done to govern a gropu larger then 1.

If the "blue" personality people can get past the jealousey and agression that competition brings out in "blue" tendency people... and exhibit the "pink" traits in conference dealings then the conference will be highly successful and benefit everyone.

;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 06, 2007, 10:37:52 AM
Bob, thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

I found a reference on multiple intelligence theory (http://ici2.umn.edu/elink/4k1c/c4k1c_3.html) that will work for these discussions.

I had 3 kids who competed for various reasons.

My "pink" son competed on the swim team in high school because he liked the relationships with his teammates, until there was a coaching change who changed the focus of the team.

My "blue" daughter really wants to win every game she has ever played... soccer, softball, miniature golf.  :D

My "pink/blue" softball pitcher would pitch inside to back the batter off the plate, but really enjoyed the "girls on the team" and did not wish to pitch at any other level of softball than "recreational" even tho' 3 of her softball teammates got D-1 soccer scholarships.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on February 13, 2007, 07:54:26 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/sports/othersports/13ncaa.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2007, 11:03:30 AM

So which d3 school has a 40,000 student enrollment?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 13, 2007, 11:41:42 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 13, 2007, 11:03:30 AM

So which d3 school has a 40,000 student enrollment?

NYU's website claims 'over 40,000' when including international branches, etc.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2007, 12:26:43 PM

Gotcha.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: scottiedoug on February 13, 2007, 12:29:45 PM
Today's New York Times has a big story about the impending rift in DIII. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/sports/othersports/13ncaa.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

I'm curious what some of you who know about this think of the Times' slant on it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2007, 12:46:19 PM

That story was posted below.  Honestly, I don't think anything will come of it in the near future.  The majority of the D3 schools understand the value of what they have.  As evidenced by the quotes from various schools in the story, they don't want to have to choose between better competition and academic emphasis.  I don't think they will...yet.


If it goes down and some of the more prestigious schools have to choose, I could see the UAA, for example, doing an Ivy thing and going D1 without scholarships.  They certainly have the money for it and I couldn't see them giving up to notch athletics to enter a D4.

I think this split would be more of a split than just two divisions.  Unless there is some more explanation and structure to it, I see it as a bad thing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on February 13, 2007, 12:53:51 PM
Quote from: Bill Pennington, New York TimesIf the division splits along the lines expected, Amherst would probably go with its conference members to the traditional category and would forfeit playing against the most competitive, national-level basketball programs and the spotlight that goes with it.

Well, maybe sometime in the future that might be true.  Recruiting and playoff restrictions (should they come about) might reduce the competitiveness of the "traditionalists" (to use the author's terminology.)  But as of right now, at least in basketball, I don't think there's a "haves" group and a "have-nots" group.  Looking at the current men's top 25 poll, I see about as many "traditionalists" (such as #3 Amherst, #4 Wooster, and #6 Wittenberg) as "non-traditionalists" like Stevens Point. 

The author treats the possibility of a D3 split as a foregone conclusion, despite comments such as these from Lisa Melendy, acting AD at Williams College:
Quote from: Bill Pennington, New York Times"When the leadership started telling us about the inevitability of a split, we all looked around and said, 'Who decided we had to split?' " Melendy said. "We like the way things are. It's a big group, but we can handle it. I like the diversity, instead of just playing the same New England or Eastern schools.  "When push comes to shove, I still think the membership won't want to split."

Maybe the surge of membership applications and the problems the NAIA and D2 seem to be having have pushed this issue, but I've had the sense that my conference (the NCAC) has been calling for a split for many years and nothing has come of it yet.  You could probably describe the formation of the NCAC in 1983 as the first act of these colleges in trying to force a divisional split, but I haven't seen much progress along these lines in the ensuing quarter-century, so I don't think a D3/D4 split is suddenly inevitable.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 13, 2007, 01:25:40 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 13, 2007, 12:53:51 PM
Quote from: Bill Pennington, New York TimesIf the division splits along the lines expected, Amherst would probably go with its conference members to the traditional category and would forfeit playing against the most competitive, national-level basketball programs and the spotlight that goes with it.

Well, maybe sometime in the future that might be true.  Recruiting and playoff restrictions (should they come about) might reduce the competitiveness of the "traditionalists" (to use the author's terminology.)  But as of right now, at least in basketball, I don't think there's a "haves" group and a "have-nots" group.  Looking at the current men's top 25 poll, I see about as many "traditionalists" (such as #3 Amherst, #4 Wooster, and #6 Wittenberg) as "non-traditionalists" like Stevens Point. 

The author treats the possibility of a D3 split as a foregone conclusion, despite comments such as these from Lisa Melendy, acting AD at Williams College:
Quote from: Bill Pennington, New York Times“When the leadership started telling us about the inevitability of a split, we all looked around and said, ‘Who decided we had to split?’ ” Melendy said. “We like the way things are. It’s a big group, but we can handle it. I like the diversity, instead of just playing the same New England or Eastern schools.  “When push comes to shove, I still think the membership won’t want to split.”

Maybe the surge of membership applications and the problems the NAIA and D2 seem to be having have pushed this issue, but I've had the sense that my conference (the NCAC) has been calling for a split for many years and nothing has come of it yet.  You could probably describe the formation of the NCAC in 1983 as the first act of these colleges in trying to force a divisional split, but I haven't seen much progress along these lines in the ensuing quarter-century, so I don't think a D3/D4 split is suddenly inevitable.

The "haves" and "have-nots" are far more evident in football, where you have the perennials (Mount Union, St. John's, Rowan, a WIAC representative and a NWC representative) competing against the traditionalists (the MWC has won 1 playoff game since the playoffs were expanded in the late 1990s).  Is it really fair for Ripon to be playing against UW-Whitewater?  Basketball, perhaps because you need only 7-10 athletes, is at one end, as any school, no matter how small or rigorous, is theoretically able to find 2-3 athletes per year capable of playing with D3's best, whereas football, with the perceived need for 30-40 athletes, requires a much greater commitment. 

So how far apart is the division?  Probably somewhere in between the basketball and football examples, which isn't really that much of a difference.  However, in my opinion, the disturbing trend is the emphasis placed upon revenue from athletics at the D3 level.  Seeing schools obtain big corporate sponsors for athletic programs so they can produce D1-calibre gameday programs takes the emphasis off the STUDENT and encourages the celebration of the athlete.    That's where I think this discussion has legs, as some schools are actively promoting the student-ATHLETE and some are promoting the STUDENT-athlete, so on gameday the playing field is inherently not level.  That is a problem.  (and my alma mater should plead guilty to that).

But how do you split upon that criteria?  Those with Target or Wal-Mart as your sponsor go to the Blue tier; those with ShopKo or Joe's Supply go to the Red tier?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2007, 01:29:21 PM


They should just let the "power" schools play in D1-AAA.  It would improve visibility for this invisible division and provide the athletic competition these schools are looking for.


It really does seem like its more of a football problem than a d3 problem at this point.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 13, 2007, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 13, 2007, 01:29:21 PM


They should just let the "power" schools play in D1-AAA.  It would improve visibility for this invisible division and provide the athletic competition these schools are looking for.


It really does seem like its more of a football problem than a d3 problem at this point.

I don't think it's the worst idea, but D1-AAA is, I think, a subdivision for D1 schools that don't have football (think Big East basketball teams like St. John's, Providence, et al.), so it may not be the best fit in terms of philosophies even with D3 "progressives" (I cannot see UW-Stevens Point enjoying competition with Providence College, as they are really different from a focus standpoint). 

It is a football problem, but it is an all-division football problem, much of which relates to D2's football members, who have higher costs than D3 (scholarships) and comparable revenue (larger student bodies than D3 (tongue-in-cheek pun intended), less alumni support generally).  This forces these schools to look to D1 or up to D3 to make the economics work, thus shrinking the division as well, not to mention making it less desirable for entry as NAIA schools.

Football was the reason for the NCAA, though the irony is that the NCAA gets relatively little from D1 football.  Given the concerns with the BCS and too many "Bowl Division" schools,  if the NCAA is smart they will look all-division to fix the football issue and stop the piecemeal division only approach. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2007, 03:00:46 PM

So, do you all think it's fair to say that without football, we wouldn't even be having this split conversation?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 13, 2007, 03:42:04 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 13, 2007, 03:00:46 PM

So, do you all think it's fair to say that without football, we wouldn't even be having this split conversation?

I don't know if it would be as marked as it is.  WIAC schools have won the  D3 Cross Country championship 3 of the past five years, and finished 2nd and 3rd when they didn't win, and have been fairly dominant in track and field as well (both M & W), and you regularly see public schools at the top of baseball and volleyball, even though they make up around 20% of the D3.  That being said, I think the numbers advantage is key, and while the WIAC limits roster size to 100, it levels the playing field at least to keep them on the same field with the perennials. 

(*Note-- not trying to single out my neighbors to the East, but they're some of the bigger schools in D3 and thus easier to pick on)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2007, 04:01:59 PM

But isn't the public-private thing more a product of differing tuition prices, not athletic vs academic priority?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2007, 06:39:06 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 13, 2007, 04:01:59 PM

But isn't the public-private thing more a product of differing tuition prices, not athletic vs academic priority?

And mission and vision, and access to cash and funding...

The article quotes new ASC Commissioner Amy Carleton who has a broad  constellation of institutions:

UT-Dallas--historically the upper-level research institution for Texas Instruments, Dallas Semi-Conductor,  and lots of companies on the Silicon Prairie.  UTD may be the most academically restrictive in the conference.  UTD was the World Collegiate Chess Champion in 2005 (Yes, Chess Scholarships are given.  ;) )  (No Football)

UT-Tyler--formerly an upper-level institution, now admitting freshmen and sophomores.  Has great access to state and private funding for facilities (http://www.uttyler.edu/athletics/facilities/) in the athletically gifted east Texas area.

Quote...it is no exaggeration to say that UT Tyler has the finest athletics facilities in East Texas and possibly in all of NCAA Division III.  --UT-Tyler website

UT_Tyler will be a tuition challenger to the private schools in the area (ETBU, LeTU) plus NAIA schools Wiley, Jarvis Christian, Texas College.  The  elephant-in-the-room is to wonder if UT-Tyler is not more comparable to the D2's (TAMU-Commerce, Southeast Okie State and Southern Arkansas) or the D1-AA's Stephen F Austin and Sam Houston State.  (No Football.)

Sul Ross State has been a charter member of the ASC (1996) and a charter member of the old Texas Intercollegiate Athletic Association, TIAA, (with Trinity TX, Austin College, now D2 Tarleton State, and McMurry in 1976).  Geographically isolated, but has always been a supportive member.

Twelve private schools and all but 2 are on the US News Top Tier for comprehensive colleges or Regional Masters Universities.

She understands what all of these institutions are vying for and they have selected D3 as their academic/athletic model.

As for the WIAC, they were a power in the NAIA in the 1970's when they were men-only in the WSUC, Wisconsin State University Conference. 

This will be interesting...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: oldknight on February 13, 2007, 07:45:37 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 13, 2007, 03:42:04 PM
  WIAC schools have won the  D3 Cross Country championship 3 of the past five years, and finished 2nd and 3rd when they didn't win, and have been fairly dominant in track and field as well

It's three of the last six now (on the men's side). Calvin won last fall and has won in 2003, 2004 and 2006 (Calvin also won in 2000). A Wisconsin school won in 2001, 2002 and 2005. But your overall point is correct--WIAC schools are very strong in cross and track.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2007, 09:51:44 PM
Wanna change some of the economics of football?

Change the rules back to one-platoon (limited substitution) ball of the 1950's or the 1930's.

But that knocks out about 70 paying student athletes from the bottom line!  :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2007, 09:57:46 PM
The president of Franklin and Marshall laments that the tent has been stretched too far.

What happened?  Too much uncontrolled diversity?  Look at all of these new schools in D3.  A lot of them don't even have Phi Beta Kappa Chapters!   :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2007, 08:39:27 AM

It is true.  The membership allowed the other schools in and now they all have a vote.  Maybe they should have been more discerning in the past?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: scottiedoug on February 14, 2007, 11:34:18 AM
I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the decisions as to admitting applicants were made according to some criteria someone established and agreed to. so the lack of discernment may have been at the criteria-establishing stage, not the admitting stage.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2007, 11:42:25 AM

Either way, the original members of d3 had to be the decision makers at some point.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 14, 2007, 11:56:49 AM
I do think there's a lot of posturing and chest-beating, but in the end, I don't think there will be a D-4. And if there is, then it will be a disaster.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2007, 12:11:16 PM

Essentially a d4 is kind of a loose conglomeration of schools where athletics is a secondary concern, right?

I would think this would translate into something like what we have now, only with less parity.  The top schools will still be able to attract athletes just because they're good schools and the stragglers at the bottom will continue to get the same athletes because there's not much recruiting going on anyway.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 15, 2007, 11:57:36 AM
It's hard to know what D4 will be when they haven't decided on a split yet, or if there will be a restructure to deal with the problems of D2 as well.  Is there interest in some D3 schools if they could give say, 4 scholarships for sports (one per year?), they would do it?  Some schools would say no way, but some may say that sounds possible and a good selling point regarding costs of education today (and could increase that desire for diversity that all educational instiutions crave).  Perhaps it could be split on sports sponsorship; perhaps it could be split on public/private grounds.  Perhaps it could be a football-only election.  What people are getting hung up upon is the name-- what about going traditional and calling it the D3 University division and D3 College division?  The stigma is reduced...

I don't think a separate division is necessarily a disaster.  It could be a positive for some schools who struggle currently given their resources-- for example, some conferences don't allow any spring football practice (at least, what the NCAA allows for D3 spring football), which arguably puts them at a disadvantage.  What is disheartening for these schools is being forced to play for the same championship as a conference whose students pay less in tuition and these advantages and wondering whether the championship is indeed on the same playing field.

I'm not about giving every kid an opportunity to play in a state tournament (like the MN State HS League, which adds a new division every 5-10 years to make sure kids can all go to state), but I am about ensuring there is a level playing field.  When the Division is as big as it is, the diversity of institutions, while such can be a positive experience, is economically dis-leveling the playing field.  When the membership is tapped in terms of its agreement capacity (read: the tent is as big as it can get), it's time to change the fundamental premise (get a new tent or make two tents).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on February 15, 2007, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 15, 2007, 11:57:36 AM
I don't think a separate division is necessarily a disaster.  It could be a positive for some schools who struggle currently given their resources--

Off the top of my head, I (think I) agree. It depends on how the possible membership falls out. However, it should be fairly clear that there's a wide gap in D3 between the "haves" and the "have-nots," though, admittedly, many of the latter may be content with their status.

In sum, I don't truly have an answer, but I'm convinced the status quo in D3 isn't all that healthy.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: K-Mack on February 15, 2007, 09:23:08 PM
This discussion is also going on under General Football, Press Coverage (articles about D3) (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=5100.0)

I agree with some of the recent posts.

And if anyone should be complaining, it's the Menlos and Principias of the world who don't really have the student body size to compete in a lot of sports on a consistent basis.

Copied:
Quote
Quote from: Sakman 1111 on February 14, 2007, 11:46:38 AM
Quote from: JT on February 14, 2007, 09:23:00 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on February 13, 2007, 06:48:35 PM
Quote from: JT on February 13, 2007, 03:41:43 PM
Here we go again:

Nerds vs. DIII Athletics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/sports/othersports/13ncaa.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin)
Yeah, I came by to post this one. Just to clarify, it's a D4 story ... wanting D3 to split into two subdivisions, from the New York Times, pretty sure it's the same writer that did the admissions thing with Shenandoah and Utica (for which I was admonished for leaving out of year in review) last summer (and NBC picked it up in the fall).

Title is Division III Seeks Harmony Between Field and Classroom, FWIW.

Haven't read it all yet, but feel free to chime in here if you have.

Its all crap.  We can't or don't want to compete, so let's change the rules and inconvenience everyone else.

This is equivalent to every little kid getting a trophy no matter where they finished.  Ties.... no winners or losers.  Yuck!

JT I couldn't agree with you more....The Nerds have intramurals please leave D3 Athletics alone......

Well,
I don't like any more than you two, but I see it a little differently. I'm not sure creating a Division IV wouldn't bring about as many problems as it creates.

And what exactly is so wrong about the current Division III? It seems to allow flexibility so that conferences can localize their choices about who they play, how much they emphasize athletics, etc.

It really only becomes a problem in postseason competition, but there's not much to suggest that small private colleges aren't just as successful as Division III public state schools. It varies from sport to sport, but even if Division III splits into two, there's going to be diversity within those groupings as well.

I'd be interested to see what the models for realignment are. And I'd hate to see how we have it change, I think teh diversity is a real asset, especially beyond football. The No. 1/No. 2 example in basketball was a really good point.

First thoughts, anyway.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: K-Mack on February 15, 2007, 09:31:00 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on February 15, 2007, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 15, 2007, 11:57:36 AM
I don't think a separate division is necessarily a disaster.  It could be a positive for some schools who struggle currently given their resources--

Off the top of my head, I (think I) agree. It depends on how the possible membership falls out. However, it should be fairly clear that there's a wide gap in D3 between the "haves" and the "have-nots," though, admittedly, many of the latter may be content with their status.

In sum, I don't truly have an answer, but I'm convinced the status quo in D3 isn't all that healthy.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument for how these so-called problems are going to be solved.

And when III and IV show up, in 10 more years, will an unhappy contingent develop and branch of into D5 and D6?

At some point, non-similar institutions are going to have to coexist.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on February 15, 2007, 11:00:49 PM
I am not sure about other sports but in basketball we figured it out one off season that the percentage of championships won by state schools and by private schools very closly mirrored the percentage of state and private schools in D3.  I really don't think there is a distinct advantage either way.

I figure that MUC, SJU, Rowan, Linfield, UWW and a few other schools will have to have several bad seasons in a row before they stop attracting the best players to their programs.  State or Private does not give an advantage, coaching, recruiting and continued success give a program an advantage.

Just my stupid opinion.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 16, 2007, 12:21:17 AM
My impression is that the schools that are pushing for more restrictive rules -- the so-called D4 teams -- aren't necessarily the have-nots. They're more like the super-haves, in fact: NESCAC schools, NCAC schools, MWC schools, all of them quite financially comfortable and highly selective in terms of admissions.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2007, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 16, 2007, 12:21:17 AM
My impression is that the schools that are pushing for more restrictive rules -- the so-called D4 teams -- aren't necessarily the have-nots. They're more like the super-haves, in fact: NESCAC schools, NCAC schools, MWC schools, all of them quite financially comfortable and highly selective in terms of admissions.

+1!  They are the super-haves.

If they went to a D4, would the Super-Haves participate in the Directors Cup?  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on February 16, 2007, 07:46:21 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 16, 2007, 12:21:17 AM
My impression is that the schools that are pushing for more restrictive rules -- the so-called D4 teams -- aren't necessarily the have-nots. They're more like the super-haves, in fact: NESCAC schools, NCAC schools, MWC schools, all of them quite financially comfortable and highly selective in terms of admissions.

Trying to understand the reasoning of the NESCAC people is an exercise in futility.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on February 16, 2007, 08:08:20 AM
I don't believe that NESCAC is advocating any change.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2007, 08:39:28 AM

I always thought it was the NCAC driving this thing.  I'm not hearing too many NESCACers getting riled up about it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on February 16, 2007, 10:07:30 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on February 15, 2007, 09:23:08 PM
I agree with some of the recent posts.

And if anyone should be complaining, it's the Menlos and Principias of the world who don't really have the student body size to compete in a lot of sports on a consistent basis.

How many students are at Melo and Principias?  Mount Union was only around 1500 when I went there in the early 90s and are up to about 2500 now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2007, 10:31:33 AM


See, that's just the thing.  When I was at school, enrollment was about 650.  We had the minimum number of sports (basketball, volleyball, soccer, tennis, cross country, baseball and softball.)  A lot of the teams stunk and relied on un-recruited kids showing up to play.

It seems like this is the proto-typical school that doesn't like the competition.  But at the same time no one there ever had thoughts about competing on a national level.  We could do well in our conference and that's what people cared about.

It seems like it's really the bigger schools who want to offer 25 sports for prestige sake, but not spend the money on recruiting and coaches, etc who are really complaining.

It's not the small schools that you should be worried about.  It's the large private ones.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 16, 2007, 10:56:39 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on February 15, 2007, 09:31:00 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on February 15, 2007, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 15, 2007, 11:57:36 AM
I don't think a separate division is necessarily a disaster.  It could be a positive for some schools who struggle currently given their resources--

Off the top of my head, I (think I) agree. It depends on how the possible membership falls out. However, it should be fairly clear that there's a wide gap in D3 between the "haves" and the "have-nots," though, admittedly, many of the latter may be content with their status.

In sum, I don't truly have an answer, but I'm convinced the status quo in D3 isn't all that healthy.

I've yet to hear a convincing argument for how these so-called problems are going to be solved.

And when III and IV show up, in 10 more years, will an unhappy contingent develop and branch of into D5 and D6?

At some point, non-similar institutions are going to have to coexist.

I agree with your last sentence entirely.  There will be some sense of diversity for sure, as there will need to be some sort of tent to stuff all sorts of schools in.

But there aren't any certainties in any change, as if there were, the legislation that has come down in the past few years would have ended it (as was hoped).  The reaction has been unhappiness about some of the changes and there has been some resentment about the unhappiness. 

I look at it this way-- there is a fundamental cost problem regarding D2 that pushes schools to D3 or over to D1.  The business of education means that once schools cut costs in such a major way, they are not likely to incur them again unless they can point to specific benefit they receive from the costs.  Starting from a school at the D3 level, does an athletic program at the D2 level increase its revenue to offset the costs by the change?  Under the current situation in D2, it appears unlikely (with exceptions, for sure).  So there is little incentive for schools that perhaps could be a better fit in D2, either size-wise, demographic-wise, tuition-wise, funding-wise, mission-wise, program-wise or otherwise, to actually move there, thus making the D3 tent so difficult.

I don't know what would happen in regard to a D4.  What we struggle with in Minnesota is how Northwestern (Roseville) or Crown College, recent NAIA converts whose student bodies are small, are supposed to compete with many of the UW schools, whose student bodies mirror the size of the D2 schools in Minnesota (SCSU, Minn. State Mankato, and UMD all have approximately 10,000 students, and I think some of the UW schools are even larger than that).  We struggle with how Macalester, who does not devote anywhere close to the funding for athletics, can compete on the same playing field as SJU football or CSB basketball.  While this is admittedly a regional issue, seeing that the MWC and the IIAC may be in a similar boat as Northwestern and Macalester, it illustrates a larger issue that needs to be corrected.

To be clear, I'm in favor of the NCAA revisiting its structure entirely and fixing the D2 problem.  I think if the NCAA restructures there is an opportunity to encourage a "free" division swapping that may relieve some burden on D3.  But without such a restructure, I don't think the funding is there to make a fourth division on D3's own initiative.  The last time the NCAA restructured itself entirely was at the dawn of the television age.  Perhaps it is time to do it again at the dawn of the internet age.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 16, 2007, 11:02:16 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 16, 2007, 10:31:33 AM
It's not the small schools that you should be worried about.  It's the large private ones.

Excellent observation.  It parallels the notion of a split on "funding" grounds.  I use the small schools as examples of victims here, and I agree that the fully-funded ones are the problem in D3.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2007, 11:07:57 AM

It's true.  I think it's more that the big, rich private schools are starting to feel inferior athletically to the state schools.

The small schools know they are inferior and have no real issue with it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2007, 12:19:20 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 16, 2007, 10:31:33 AM


It seems like it's really the bigger schools who want to offer 25 sports for prestige sake, but not spend the money on recruiting and coaches, etc who are really complaining.

It's not the small schools that you should be worried about.  It's the large private ones.

+1 hoops fan!  That captures the essence of the debate.

D3 is the big tent.  For a small school among its peers (and the UMAC is an example), the conference championship is a big thing!  It is laudable, in and of itself.  The gravy is when the NCAA foots the tab for these kids to make a trip for a playoff game!

They have striven,  they have competed, and hopefully the victorious coach, who blew them out by 20 points with vastly superior talent, addresses them in the locker room after the conclusion of the game to congratulate them on their season and how joyful it was to him to see students-athletes leaving it all on the court or field.

That is the spirit of D3!  And, the big tent will accomodate that.  We love the Cinderellas.  That is what is so great about March Madness, when hard-working teams "will" themselves to victory over vastly superior talent!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2007, 12:45:08 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 16, 2007, 10:56:39 AM
...

To be clear, I'm in favor of the NCAA revisiting its structure entirely and fixing the D2 problem.  I think if the NCAA restructures there is an opportunity to encourage a "free" division swapping that may relieve some burden on D3.  But without such a restructure, I don't think the funding is there to make a fourth division on D3's own initiative.  The last time the NCAA restructured itself entirely was at the dawn of the television age.  Perhaps it is time to do it again at the dawn of the internet age.
I cannot see why it should take more than 1-2 years for a D3 to move to D2!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 16, 2007, 01:02:56 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2007, 12:45:08 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 16, 2007, 10:56:39 AM
...

To be clear, I'm in favor of the NCAA revisiting its structure entirely and fixing the D2 problem.  I think if the NCAA restructures there is an opportunity to encourage a "free" division swapping that may relieve some burden on D3.  But without such a restructure, I don't think the funding is there to make a fourth division on D3's own initiative.  The last time the NCAA restructured itself entirely was at the dawn of the television age.  Perhaps it is time to do it again at the dawn of the internet age.
I cannot see why it should take more than 1-2 years for a D3 to move to D2!

They don't want to end up like Chowan.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: tmerton on February 16, 2007, 03:12:11 PM
Quote from: kirasdad on February 16, 2007, 10:07:30 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on February 15, 2007, 09:23:08 PM
I agree with some of the recent posts.

And if anyone should be complaining, it's the Menlos and Principias of the world who don't really have the student body size to compete in a lot of sports on a consistent basis.

How many students are at Melo and Principias?  Mount Union was only around 1500 when I went there in the early 90s and are up to about 2500 now.

Menlo has about 600 students.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 16, 2007, 07:10:19 PM
Esq:

No UW D-III school has as many as 10,000 full-time undergraduate students.

UW-Eau Claire     Eau Claire, WI     9280
UW-La Crosse    La Crosse, WI    7389
UW-Oshkosh    Oshkosh, WI    8586
UW-Platteville    Platteville, WI    5015
UW-River Falls    River Falls, WI    5019
UW-Stevens Point    Stevens Point, WI    7849
UW-Stout    Menomonie, WI    6229
UW-Superior    Superior, WI    1947
UW-Whitewater    Whitewater, WI    8708

I would say that the NCAA can ease movement into Division II all it wants, but that doesn't mean schools are going to take them up on it. In our decade of D-III coverage, the list of schools that have moved or are moving to D-III is actually rather small: UC San Diego, Chowan, Chestnut Hill, Lincoln and Lake Erie. (I don't know if I've missed any.) Three of those schools have barely begun the process.

If there were a Division II-AA, for example, who do we think would take them up on it?

Let me take the Minnesota situation one step further -- how are Crown and Martin Luther and North Central Bible expected to compete with the MIAC? Yet here they are, all in the same classification.

Welcome to D-III. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on February 16, 2007, 07:26:01 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on February 15, 2007, 09:31:00 PM
At some point, non-similar institutions are going to have to coexist.
The SCIAC is a good example.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on February 16, 2007, 08:18:38 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on February 16, 2007, 07:26:01 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on February 15, 2007, 09:31:00 PM
At some point, non-similar institutions are going to have to coexist.
The SCIAC is a good example.

The Skyline is another good example.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 16, 2007, 08:54:56 PM
Not a very good example, considering the way it's been splitting up the last year or so. :)

Similarly the CAC, which is split public/private. The very uneasy peace was broken when Catholic and Goucher decided to bolt.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 17, 2007, 09:26:29 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 16, 2007, 07:10:19 PM
Esq:

No UW D-III school has as many as 10,000 full-time undergraduate students.


I looked up the Minnesota D2 undergraduate enrollments for comparison.

St. Cloud State      14,496
Minnesota State-Mankato   12,683
UM-Duluth      8,931
Winona State      7,447
Minnesota State-Moorhead7,242
Southwest MN State   5,605
Bemidji State      4,126
Concordia-SP      1,736

Taking away SCSU and Mankato, the other six are pretty comparable to the UW schools.  This is again, not to pick on the WIACers, but as a point of comparison.

My point was not to look solely at the D2 schools, but at the NAIA converts who have had the option to look at either D2 (offering scholarships, similar to many NAIA schools) or D3 to cut costs.  While you don't see D2 schools moving to D3 (it would be a 4 year process, I assume-- unless you plan to lose those scholarship athletes), you do see the NAIAers tending to choose D3 over D2.

Do you really think the NCAA would fund a second subdivision under its current structure of its smallest division?

As far as the UMAC schools, they already do compete with the MIAC-- just ask AO  ;D  In fairness, they have been competitive in basketball for some time, and NWC has done pretty well against MIAC squads in football.  These schools are much closer in terms of enrollment to MIAC and IIAC squads than MIAC is to WIAC.  But I'm not precluding that the MIAC couldn't be lumped in any split with the WIAC right now...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: K-Mack on February 27, 2007, 10:18:06 PM
(for the record, I made the below posts before realizing how many well-thought out responses I had not yet read. Forgive me if this has been covered)

Quote from: Knightstalker on February 15, 2007, 11:00:49 PM
I am not sure about other sports but in basketball we figured it out one off season that the percentage of championships won by state schools and by private schools very closly mirrored the percentage of state and private schools in D3.  I really don't think there is a distinct advantage either way.

I figure that MUC, SJU, Rowan, Linfield, UWW and a few other schools will have to have several bad seasons in a row before they stop attracting the best players to their programs.  State or Private does not give an advantage, coaching, recruiting and continued success give a program an advantage.

Just my stupid opinion.

I agree for the most part. Just among those powers that you listed you have many different types of schools. And even the Amherst / Platteville thing (or whatever it was) says a lot.

The weird thing is once you get beyond football and basketball, the super-haves (see below) often become the powerhouses with everyone else struggling to keep pace. At some level, high academic reputation and financial standing does bring about athletic success, if you're talking about the right sports.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 16, 2007, 12:21:17 AM
My impression is that the schools that are pushing for more restrictive rules -- the so-called D4 teams -- aren't necessarily the have-nots. They're more like the super-haves, in fact: NESCAC schools, NCAC schools, MWC schools, all of them quite financially comfortable and highly selective in terms of admissions.

I feel that.

But it also makes me wonder, then, what do they stand to gain by separating?

Just the war over who keeps the Division III name might be enough to subvert (?) the whole thing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: K-Mack on February 27, 2007, 10:19:20 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 16, 2007, 08:39:28 AM

I always thought it was the NCAC driving this thing.  I'm not hearing too many NESCACers getting riled up about it.

I get the impression that the Centennial folks seem to mention it a lot, but I can't say that for sure.

I know that academic perception appears to be a really important issue to some.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: K-Mack on February 27, 2007, 10:41:53 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 16, 2007, 11:07:57 AM

It's true.  I think it's more that the big, rich private schools are starting to feel inferior athletically to the state schools.

The small schools know they are inferior and have no real issue with it.

Interesting take.

I think the competitiveness varies from region to region and state to state. Any additional division that breaks up closely-knit conferences, or threatens to, is going to have a tough time passing.

A couple of you hit it on the head earlier. D3 is built on the conference structure. National playoffs are just gravy, and in all honesty, are not a reality for a lot of students who devote a lot of time to being good at sports in D3.

Another thing ... a small school staying competitive in football (roster of 60-100 generally), baseball (roster of what, 25?), basketball (roster of 12-15) and, let's say tennis (roster of what, 6-12?) are different things.

When you are talking about moving your entire athletic program to a new subdivision, do you weigh equally how this affects all sports? We're talking about very different requirements ... and perhaps institutions who value their athletic program in different ways (valuable part of student life, tradition, money-maker, recruiting tool, prestige-measurer, etc.)

I think it was Johnnie_esq who said "there aren't any certainties in any change."

Wise words.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: K-Mack on March 11, 2007, 08:28:38 PM
Allow me to point out the Men's Basketball Final Four:

Amherst
Wash. U.
Va. Wesleyan
Wooster

Does someone else want to look up the US News & World Report numbers on that?

And if you take it back a weekend and look at the diversity of schools who sent teams to the Sweet 16, it's another example of how success in Division III sports comes in many forms.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 11, 2007, 09:18:34 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on March 11, 2007, 08:28:38 PM
Allow me to point out the Men's Basketball Final Four:

School/ Rank /Category/ Founded/ Endowment

Amherst #2 (of 104)/ Top Lib Arts/ 1821/ $1.154 B
Wash. U. #12T (of 126)/ National Universities/ 1853/ $4.3B
Va. Wesleyan 4th tier/ Liberal Arts/ 1961/ $39M
Wooster  #67 (of 104)/ Top Lib Arts/ 1866/ $271M

Does someone else want to look up the US News & World Report numbers on that?

And if you take it back a weekend and look at the diversity of schools who sent teams to the Sweet 16, it's another example of how success in Division III sports comes in many forms.

In VWC's defense, Wash U's endowment probably spins off $39M per month.   The Marlins won their first National Championship in their 45th year.  It took Amherst nearly 2 centuries.   :D  ;D :D

Virginia Wesleyan has not even experienced the full philanthropy of their first generation of students.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on March 11, 2007, 11:46:24 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 11, 2007, 09:18:34 PM
In VWC's defense, Wash U's endowment probably spins off $39M per month.   The Marlins won their first National Championship in their 45th year.  It took Amherst nearly 2 centuries.   :D  ;D :D

Now just a cotton-pickin' minute.  The clock is still ticking on Amherst; let's not concede the trophy to them just yet.  ::) :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 11, 2007, 11:56:20 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 11, 2007, 11:46:24 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 11, 2007, 09:18:34 PM
In VWC's defense, Wash U's endowment probably spins off $39M per month.   The Marlins won their first National Championship in their 45th year.  It took Amherst nearly 2 centuries.   :D  ;D :D

Now just a cotton-pickin' minute.  The clock is still ticking on Amherst; let's not concede the trophy to them just yet.  ::) :D
My bad! :-\
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 13, 2007, 03:35:18 PM

Well, it still gives them another decade or so to get in under than two centuries banner.  It's not like he pronounced them victorious this year specifically.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: JeffRookie2 on March 13, 2007, 05:13:29 PM
I'm sorry, how long have they even been holding these championships? Basketball itself is way younger than 200 years. Or did you mean championships in general? Well, we might double our all-time haul this weekend with mens bball and womens hockey.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on March 13, 2007, 08:13:40 PM
Completely off the topic:

Does anyone else think the headline on this article should have been "Miseri loves new company"

http://www.d3hoops.com/notables.php?item=967

...or is it just me?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: labart96 on March 19, 2007, 01:20:18 PM
Interesting move by Davidson:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_re_us/financial_aid_loans
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 19, 2007, 01:24:07 PM

This isn't exactly on topic, but that's an awfully small enrollment for a school with such a quality basketball program.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2007, 02:38:33 PM
Quote from: TGP, Earl of Carbombs on March 19, 2007, 01:20:18 PM
Interesting move by Davidson:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_re_us/financial_aid_loans
+1 TGP.  Quite thought provoking! :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: labart96 on March 19, 2007, 03:34:23 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2007, 02:38:33 PM
Quote from: TGP, Earl of Carbombs on March 19, 2007, 01:20:18 PM
Interesting move by Davidson:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_re_us/financial_aid_loans
+1 TGP.  Quite thought provoking! :)

Thx Ralph -

Any and every fan of D3 should have this stuff on their radar.  Not across the board by any means, but most D3 FB schools at least tend to be private institutions with significant price tags ($30-40K+/yr) whose tuition costs keep going up (making families and financial aid offers work even harder to get and keep their students in school).  The fact at least one institution is taking such a public stance against debt is really something to applaud.  It's hard enough to get your life kick started post graduation, let alone being saddled with $100K in debt b/f you are even 23!!!

TGP's alma mater for instance, is about 45% more expensive to attend now that it was when TGP was a student there - a little more than 10 yrs ago.

Would be curious to see if anyone in academia has studied the growth of institutional grant monies vs. rising tuition costs.  TGP's guess is that there would be some correllation, but grants still lagging behind.  Hopefully moves like Davidson's will catch steam (especially at school's with decent, if not, significant endowments).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 19, 2007, 03:59:40 PM

My alma mater, one of the least expensive private schools in New England will charge 50% more in the 2007-2008 year than I paid for my freshman year in 1999.

That's a quick rise.


Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: labart96 on March 19, 2007, 04:36:03 PM
Maybe one of these days, TGP will be on a Board so he can see how these costs are divied up.

Having worked as a college administrator early in my career, TGP has seen first hand how competitive it is out there on the front recruiting lines.  Kids seem to be applying to more and more schools (10-12 minimum!), meaning marketing and admissions budgets have had to rise to keep up.

Then you take into consideration wireless requirements for dorms (more servers, more support staff, etc), country club campus conditions required to keep up with the joneses, travel abroad expansion, etc, etc and TGP can see how a 50% rise in a couple of years could happen.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 20, 2007, 12:47:57 AM
Davidson has an endowment of over $420m. That gives that school a lot more latitude to experiment with alternative forms of finance with regard to its students and how they pay their bills than is true of the vast majority of D3 schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on March 20, 2007, 08:42:29 AM
It's going to make an impact, perhaps, in some leagues, for sure. The leagues with the schools that have more of a national footprint and large endowments.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2007, 08:54:15 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 20, 2007, 12:47:57 AM
Davidson has an endowment of over $420m. That gives that school a lot more latitude to experiment with alternative forms of finance with regard to its students and how they pay their bills than is true of the vast majority of D3 schools.

For the record, the Milton Hershey School (brainchild of Milton "Chocolate" Hershey himself) has an endowment of seven billion dollars, courtesy the Hershey Trust Fund. Every time you buy a Hershey Bar or Candy Kiss, you're increasing the Trust's holdings.

Perhaps they should compete in D3 athletics. Better yet, maybe they should fund D3 athletics. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: labart96 on March 20, 2007, 12:19:34 PM
Obviously some schools with significant endowments can be more creative here.  The other question this raised for TGP, was that within the Liberty League, there are schools with "low" endowments like my alma mater (less than $150MM) playing schools with $300+MM (Union) to $1B plus endowments (RPI). 

It makes TGP wonder a little bit how recruiting and/or programs could be effected should should some of our competitors adopt a similiar aid strategy as Davidson?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 20, 2007, 12:25:16 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2007, 08:54:15 AM
Better yet, maybe they should fund D3 athletics. ;)

Hah!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2007, 03:55:24 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 20, 2007, 12:25:16 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2007, 08:54:15 AM
Better yet, maybe they should fund D3 athletics. ;)

Hah!

Someone once proclaimed, "A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon you're talking about real money." The Milton Hershey School seems to have really "real money."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on March 20, 2007, 04:35:38 PM
I'm surprised how many schools have just seven and eight figure endowments, though.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2007, 04:50:30 PM
Quote from: smedindy on March 20, 2007, 04:35:38 PM
I'm surprised how many schools have just seven and eight figure endowments, though.

In terms of endowments, there are some obscenely rich venues in D3 ... and some that have endowments below a good many private prep schools as well as a number of "rich" public high schools.

In terms of raw dollars, there's a great divide in D3.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 21, 2007, 01:13:48 AM
Quote from: smedindy on March 20, 2007, 04:35:38 PM
I'm surprised how many schools have just seven and eight figure endowments, though.

Exactly. TGP speaks of his alma mater having a "low" endowment of $150m, but there's a huge percentage of D3's membership that would kill to have $150m in the bank.

Quote from: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2007, 08:54:15 AMFor the record, the Milton Hershey School (brainchild of Milton "Chocolate" Hershey himself) has an endowment of seven billion dollars, courtesy the Hershey Trust Fund. Every time you buy a Hershey Bar or Candy Kiss, you're increasing the Trust's holdings.

I put myself through a year of seminary by working in an M&M/Mars chocolate factory. They taught me not to buy product from the enemy. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: labart96 on March 21, 2007, 01:28:14 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 21, 2007, 01:13:48 AM
Quote from: smedindy on March 20, 2007, 04:35:38 PM
I'm surprised how many schools have just seven and eight figure endowments, though.

Exactly. TGP speaks of his alma mater having a "low" endowment of $150m, but there's a huge percentage of D3's membership that would kill to have $150m in the bank.

Quote from: Warren Thompson on March 20, 2007, 08:54:15 AMFor the record, the Milton Hershey School (brainchild of Milton "Chocolate" Hershey himself) has an endowment of seven billion dollars, courtesy the Hershey Trust Fund. Every time you buy a Hershey Bar or Candy Kiss, you're increasing the Trust's holdings.

I put myself through a year of seminary by working in an M&M/Mars chocolate factory. They taught me not to buy product from the enemy. ;)

There is some truth to that.  TGP's perspective is obviously biased towards his alma mater in comparison to the school's we compete with - not the entire D3 spectrum.

Keep in mind though, that Hobart is almost 200 years old, which not all the other schools across the D3 spectrum are - giving us time to build up our endowment (it was less than 10-20 as recently as the late 80's though.  We didn't really go crazy with the fund-raising until about 92 or 93.....)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: scottiedoug on March 21, 2007, 05:52:29 PM
I was talking today with Randy Lambert, basketball coach at Maryville (TN) College, which has a meager endowment and a hefty pricetag.  We were talking about specific recruits.  Except for Davidson and Princeton and a few others, almost every student athlete has to borrow money...thousands of dollars.  For a great many poor and/or working class kids, esp. first generation college students, borrowing money like that is just not an option.  So any full or nearly full athletic scholarship from NAIA or D2 or JUCO, no matter how good the academics or "valuable" the degree, is the only choice.  It is too bad we as a society do not really value education sufficiently!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 29, 2007, 08:22:39 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 11, 2007, 11:46:24 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 11, 2007, 09:18:34 PM
In VWC's defense, Wash U's endowment probably spins off $39M per month.   The Marlins won their first National Championship in their 45th year.  It took Amherst nearly 2 centuries.   :D  ;D :D

Now just a cotton-pickin' minute.  The clock is still ticking on Amherst; let's not concede the trophy to them just yet.  ::) :D

Was just reading old posts looking for something I couldn't find.

David, can we concede them the trophy yet?!  (And award Ralph the 'accidental crystal ball award'?)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 04, 2007, 06:36:09 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 29, 2007, 08:22:39 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 11, 2007, 11:46:24 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 11, 2007, 09:18:34 PM
In VWC's defense, Wash U's endowment probably spins off $39M per month.   The Marlins won their first National Championship in their 45th year.  It took Amherst nearly 2 centuries.   :D  ;D :D

Now just a cotton-pickin' minute.  The clock is still ticking on Amherst; let's not concede the trophy to them just yet.  ::) :D

Was just reading old posts looking for something I couldn't find.

David, can we concede them the trophy yet?!  (And award Ralph the 'accidental crystal ball award'?)
Accidental !?!?!   :o 

That is prescience!  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 04, 2007, 06:46:56 PM
From the Working Group on Membership Issues, I found this in the March 2, 2007 agenda.

Potential methods for Dividing D3 Institutions.

Dividing the Institutions in D3-- Background Information (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/March_2/agenda.htm)

Supplement #5 is a Power Point and Supplement #6 is a PDF File.

Are they trying to co-opt the NAIA with their "Division IV"?

Supplement A addresses the budget...the CBS (March Madness) contract which provides 90% of the revenue (direct and indirect) and extends thru 2013..




Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 05, 2007, 09:42:32 AM

So they are proposing that the division with more restrictions would require more sports?  Doesn't this cater entirely to the "power" conferences that pride themselves on academic elitism?  It seems like this was tailor made to help the NESCAC, CCIW and UAA dominate.


It would require 8 sports for each gender, a total of 16, which would forcibly push the smaller schools into the less restrictive category (4 and 4 required) where they have no hope of competing with the likes of the WIAC.

I would think that however the division is made (if it is indeed going to happen) that they formulate it in a way that smaller schools can still choose the more restrictive route.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 05, 2007, 10:36:34 AM
Hoops Fan, it is interesting.  I wonder if this clears when the vote comes up in D3.

Most of the programs at the top of the Directors' Cup are close to 16 schools anyway.  The addition of the AQ in numerous sports such as Men and Women's Golf and Women's Tennis at the Conference level makes it much easier to justify the addition of M&W Golf.

As it was in Golf, you were competing for National bids against traditional powerhouse programs.  Now all you have to do it get a good enough team to win your conference.

I like this more egaliatrian conference-based competition.  It generates more excitement locally.  I also think that it makes it easier to get to 8 and 8.

VB/FB, M&W XC, M&W Soccer, M&W Hoops, M&W Tennis, M&W Golf, Baseball/Softball and you have 14 sports, 7 & 7.

Then you can consider M&W Swimming & Diving, or M&W Track, or M&W Lacrosse... Lots of options!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 05, 2007, 11:11:15 AM

I was thinking more selfishly for my tiny alma mater.  VB, BB/SB, M&W Soccer, M&W Basketball, M&W Tennis, Cross Country.  They have to be near the bottom in terms of athletic budget and there's no way the student body is even big enough to have football.

They would be forced into the less restrictive division just because of finances.  It seems to me like having more sports would be beneficial to the more "competitive" schools.  The more restrictive division should be for those schools who see athletics as a small component of their overall offering, rather than as a recruiting tool or as a competitive avenue.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 05, 2007, 01:24:26 PM
And your school might be among the 175-250 who would vote this thing down.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: CUAfan on April 05, 2007, 02:20:11 PM
Thing is, if the D3/4 idea actually happens, what benefit is there for an athletic program to be D4 instead of NAIA-1? Might as well go NAIA so you can offer "athletic aid." I forget off-hand if there was a minimum-sport rule in NAIA, which might come into play. If it goes through, I don't think it unreasonable to say that a lot of likely D4 schools would go NAIA.

Besides, as nutty as (for example), the D3 basketball selections are travel-wise, just think about how much worse it will be for schools even lower on the totem pole than D3. The NCAA-powers-that-be just won't care.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 05, 2007, 06:32:59 PM
I am unable to access that NCAA webpage to look at the agenda.

I wonder if the NCAA's filters detected too much traffic or what?

Maybe I need to try from another computer... ???
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Spence on April 05, 2007, 11:45:21 PM
The way this looks (Division III-AA) it seems like Division III would still exist and there would be 1 of 3 options. To me that's too many, for one, but this has a LONG way to go.

I might be weird, but I like the division the way it is. The advantage that the state schools have is hardly insurmountable at least at this point. Perhaps the goal is to finish off NAIA by giving them options other than the current Division III. I'm not so sure that they wouldn't wind up also bleeding dry Division II in the process. What school would rather pay out full scholarships than join this Division IV, not have to pay scholarships, and still be able to do pretty much everything you can already do in D-II?

Btw, to have 8 men's sports that includes football almost necessitates having probably 10 women's sports to be in Title IX compliance.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 06, 2007, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: Spence on April 05, 2007, 11:45:21 PM
The way this looks (Division III-AA) it seems like Division III would still exist and there would be 1 of 3 options. To me that's too many, for one, but this has a LONG way to go.

I might be weird, but I like the division the way it is. The advantage that the state schools have is hardly insurmountable at least at this point. Perhaps the goal is to finish off NAIA by giving them options other than the current Division III. I'm not so sure that they wouldn't wind up also bleeding dry Division II in the process. What school would rather pay out full scholarships than join this Division IV, not have to pay scholarships, and still be able to do pretty much everything you can already do in D-II?

Btw, to have 8 men's sports that includes football almost necessitates having probably 10 women's sports to be in Title IX compliance.
I like D3 the way it is compared to their proposals.

I also think that the WIAC (http://www.uwsa.edu/wiac/) could match the criteria set by the "Elites".

I really wonder if the vote is ever close.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 06, 2007, 02:04:03 AM
Quote from: CUAfan on April 05, 2007, 02:20:11 PM
Thing is, if the D3/4 idea actually happens, what benefit is there for an athletic program to be D4 instead of NAIA-1? Might as well go NAIA so you can offer "athletic aid." I forget off-hand if there was a minimum-sport rule in NAIA, which might come into play.

No, there isn't, and that's the essential appeal of the organization for a lot of the schools that have remained within it. If you just want to offer men's and women's basketball and, say, a volleyball team and a baseball team, and nothing else, you can do so within the NAIA. One of the charts in the link Ralph provided breaks down the number of programs offered by schools within D2, D3, and the NAIA. It's pretty clear by looking at that chart that a significant number of NAIA members are well below the minimum requirements of both D2 and D3 in terms of athletic programs offered.

Quote from: Spence on April 05, 2007, 11:45:21 PMI might be weird, but I like the division the way it is.

Ditto! Hey, every school would like to tailor the rules and requirements of intercollegiate athletic competition their own way. Should we break up the NCAA and the NAIA and just have 1,400 different sets of rules? For as much as I complain about the incongruities of D3's tournament selection process in men's basketball, the truth of the matter is that D3 in and of itself is a terrific institution in both the philosophical and competitive senses. I think that D3 is the culmination of a pretty elegant set of compromises, and I'd hate to see it broken into pieces just because some schools feel that they can fine-tune those compromises to even more exacting standards that cater to them in particular. Folks, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: griz5 on April 06, 2007, 11:13:56 AM
Most people who are at this site probably have someone involved in D3 sports. The problem I have with the D3 rules is the ability for coaches to recruit as many kids as they can for a sport and then weed them out after they arrive on campus.

I would like for D3 schools to provide some minimal assistance (EX. $500 towards room and board or something else). This would show some commitment to the student ath. and the number available could correspond to scholarships in D1. This would at least let the player know what the coach really feels his potential is to make the team.

It would not rule out walkons but would at least require the coach to make some effort to evaluate talent before a kid commits to that school.

The commitment from the player would be that once he signs a letter to attend that school he is no longer eligible to recieve the minimal assistance from another school for that year.

Just my thoughts.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 06, 2007, 12:35:27 PM
Quote from: griz5 on April 06, 2007, 11:13:56 AM
Most people who are at this site probably have someone involved in D3 sports. The problem I have with the D3 rules is the ability for coaches to recruit as many kids as they can for a sport and then weed them out after they arrive on campus.

I would like for D3 schools to provide some minimal assistance (EX. $500 towards room and board or something else). This would show some commitment to the student ath. and the number available could correspond to scholarships in D1. This would at least let the player know what the coach really feels his potential is to make the team.

It would not rule out walkons but would at least require the coach to make some effort to evaluate talent before a kid commits to that school.

The commitment from the player would be that once he signs a letter to attend that school he is no longer eligible to recieve the minimal assistance from another school for that year.

Just my thoughts.
Griz, thank you for the well-considered post.

Respectfully, that concept is cross-purposes with D3 as I understand it, and it probably more accurately reflects NAIA, D2 and D1.

I am not sure of the orientation materials that D3 makes available, or even requires, but the great majority of D3 athletes are in D3 because they want the education while they are continuing to compete in a sophisticated organization, namely NCAA D3.

I hope that your child is going to that school for the education, and the athletics is the "gravy".  Because grant-in-aid cannot be preferentially be given to athletes, your child cannot get "athletically related monies" from the coach.

I believe that any parent must assume (however hard that may be) that the quality of talent is so level, that a coach cannot predict how any one particular student-athlete will adjust to the myriad of changes that accompany college.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: griz5 on April 06, 2007, 01:13:03 PM
This issue actually does not affect me but every year I see kids who have talked to the coaches and believe the have a chance, even though the coach has talked to 30 other freshmen for 7 or 8 available spots.

We all hope the quality of the school is what made the choice for the student but right or wrong this is not always the case. I would just like to see some way for the kids to know if they have a chance of actually making the team.

In some programs the coaches will simply cast their net and then throw away the non-keepers.



Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: batteredbard on April 06, 2007, 06:21:07 PM
That answer is research.
Pulling up the Title iX filing with the US dept of education on the internet shows you how many athletes a school has in each sport. If a school has over 200 athletes on the football team then its easy to see that most of them are not ever starting and percentage wise few are seeing the field at all in varsity competition. I've told parents who have asked me what I knew about such and such school to point blank ask how many freshman were brought in the year before and  how many are still there. Scoping out and comparing the rosters over two or three seasons can show how many names disappear between freshman year and junior year in most sports.

I agree that using a monetary carrott and stick on coaches is counter to the D3 spirit. That said I personally dislike programs that bring in large numbers and sift them through to find a few diamonds. The kids can still stay and get a degree but remember these students are generally in an academic range where they could be going almost for nothing to some public schools in D1. But I don't know of a way to put a stop to it. If that's the way a school operates or allows a coach to operate then eventually the back lash is common word and the pros and cons of that school's teams shift in the eyes of high school athletes.

Going back a step about endowments. Associated Press reported April 5 that Fisk University had been prevented by the Tenn. attorney general from selling  Georgia O'Keefe's 'Radiator Building - Night, New York) for about $18 million less than appraisal to help rebuild the school's endowment. The school also has Marsden Hartley's "Painting No. 3" on the block for the same purpose.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 06, 2007, 11:15:42 PM
Radiator Building at Night New York by Georgia O'Keefe (http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/okeeffe/p-okeeffe9.htm)

New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/education/16fisk.html?ex=1329282000&en=6029c7e5bbb92893&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt) on the sale from Fisk's Alfred Stieglitz Collection

Here is the Hartley that I think is in the Stieglitz Collection Landscape #3 (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/284/15/1895).  (This was all that my searches on two separate engines could find.  :-\)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 09, 2007, 10:46:20 AM

I'll be the voice for the small school again.  Our coaches go after 30 players for 5 slots on the men's basketball team and get three of them to show up and they have to rely on walk ons anyway.  NAIA just isn't an option in New England as there are about three NAIA schools left.

I was in favor of the split when it was more of a big program/small program split.  Obviously the schools that have and spend more money have an advantage and also encounter these sorts of competitive problems in recruiting too many kids or redshirting.  These all seem like things that come with monetary advantage.

I wish they stop couching these things in terms of athletics/academics.  Amherst has just as much money to spend (if not more) than Stevens Point or Whitworth or whoever the culprit of the moment is.  In my opinion it would make more sense to have specific rules for athletic departments over a certain budget.  You might run into problems with schools with really small enrollments spending huge amounts, but I think those would be quite few.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on April 10, 2007, 11:33:02 AM
There is no way here that anyone is 'thrown away'. Sure, people have spent four years in a program and hardly played varsity, and sure, kids have come here, spent their freshman year on the bench or in JV, and decided to stop playing sports, but as long as the kids are willing to keep coming out and work in a sport, there is a spot in the program.

As for D-III - let's just keep it as / is.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: batteredbard on April 10, 2007, 05:08:55 PM
That brings up the difference in geography for NAIA that directly affects D3. The South is NAIA dominated. There are four D3s in Tennessee (Maryville, Rhodes, Sewanee, Fisk) but there are nine Div 1 NAIA schools and four Div 2 NAIA in the same area.
The heart of the matter is that in being so broad but yet so battered that D3 has different pressing needs but many of them are geographically based.  The public-private debate is really not a southern issue (because there simply aren't that many public D3s in the south outisde of Va.) unless programs are in a consistant NCAA tourney bid modewhere they get sent home by publics. It is however obviously a concern for most other regions.
Dollras for athletics doesn't work because travel is a lot larger cost for some programs and if you take that out of a determinig formula then there are obviosuly going to be problems with folks who get cute with the rules and start lumping recruiting budgets into competition travel, etc. (Try comparing financial reports on the standardized DOE forms and see how many different ways schools can interprut the same four pages as it is)
The issues aren't going to go away on their own but I don't see any of them killing D3 in the next season or two either.
So in some forum or another its time for some discussion between the ads, coaches, college presidents, student athletes and former athletes and ncaa to start the wrestling process over some of this and possibly give us something that makes everyone unhappy. Otherwise one group will do it on their own and that leads to frankenstein monsters like the BCS which falls way short of the playoffs d2 and 3 enjoy.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 19, 2007, 07:24:30 AM
NCAA Press Release on the use of male practice players in women's sports (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Results+of+male+practice+players+survey+released+-+04-17-07+update)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 19, 2007, 10:35:09 AM

It's good they're taking a common sense approach to this.  Let's just hope the sanity can continue until this issue is resolved.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on April 19, 2007, 01:34:12 PM
But with the NCAA one can never be sure. In this case as in a multitude of others, the NCAA may not be able to resist the opportunity to insert its nose and to attempt to micromanage something which should be left entirely to each college for itself.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 19, 2007, 01:38:45 PM

I still can't believe there are two ADs out there so cheap as to recruit and scholarship less female athletes because they can get guys to practice with them.  Well, maybe I should be applauding their honesty at the same time.  I don't know.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on April 19, 2007, 07:58:35 PM
 Ralph

  I once asked a young lady who played two sports in a DIII program if she was  starter on the softball team and she replied, " No!!! I am not man enough for the coach!!!!! True story!!!! Maybe those coaches are trying to make men out of their players too!!!!

Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 19, 2007, 07:24:30 AM
NCAA Press Release on the use of male practice players in women's sports (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Results+of+male+practice+players+survey+released+-+04-17-07+update)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 19, 2007, 11:40:51 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on April 19, 2007, 07:58:35 PM
Ralph

  I once asked a young lady who played two sports in a DIII program if she was  starter on the softball team and she replied, " No!!! I am not man enough for the coach!!!!! True story!!!! Maybe those coaches are trying to make men out of their players too!!!!

Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 19, 2007, 07:24:30 AM
NCAA Press Release on the use of male practice players in women's sports (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Results+of+male+practice+players+survey+released+-+04-17-07+update)

I understand the personality charateristic that the coach was wanting in the players.

I don't use "male" and "female" to describe those attributes.  I use "blue" and "pink".

Some women have that "killer" instinct.  Some don't.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on April 20, 2007, 12:21:11 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 19, 2007, 11:40:51 PM
Some women have that "killer" instinct.  Some don't.
Some men have that "killer" instinct.  Some don't. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Spence on April 21, 2007, 10:35:58 PM
Heh careful where you toss that around Ralph. ARound some parts the Blue and Pink teams where women's athletics is concerned means something else entirely!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 21, 2007, 11:54:44 PM
Quote from: Spence on April 21, 2007, 10:35:58 PM
Heh careful where you toss that around Ralph. ARound some parts the Blue and Pink teams where women's athletics is concerned means something else entirely!
Yes, I have no interest in pursuing that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 01, 2007, 08:25:33 AM
An FYI, 

Here is the pdf file  (http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/legislation_and_governance/rules_and_bylaws/legislative_actions_and_issues/d3_legislative_activity_calendar.pdf) that outlines the calendar for new legislative activity for the Jan 2008 NCAA General Session for legislation to take effect in August 2008.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 03, 2007, 03:16:53 PM
The post below was posted in the multi-region area, but it seems to fit here nicely.


Quote from: Josh Bowerman on May 03, 2007, 03:05:58 PM
For lack of a better place to post this, I thought I'd put it in here.  I assume the rule change will affect men's hoops at all AA divisions.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2859065

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 03, 2007, 04:46:21 PM

I was thinking the other day, and it's not necessarily about college, but I noticed how ridiculous the NBA three-point line is, that these guys can't even get their feet down between the line and out of bounds on shots from the sides.

It seems like, given the NBA's love of scoring and individual accomplishment, that they should move the three point line in, at least as far as they need to to get 15 inches on the sides, but then add a 4 point line about five feet over halfcourt that runs in a slightly curved line.  That would be interesting.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Josh Bowerman on May 03, 2007, 05:06:12 PM
How many of those four-pointers do you think Kobe Bryant would jack up in an average game, Hoops Fan?  I've got the early over/under at seven.   ;D

I think the change likely has something to do with prepping for the international game, but you would think they'd have changed the lane width too, if that were the primary impetus.  I'm sort of scratching my head on this one, honestly.

And I'm kinda with Bob, I think--if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

Unless you're the AA, of course--then you can fix things that aren't broken, ignore things that are broken and need fixing, and break things that were already fixed (redundancy intended).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Josh Bowerman on May 03, 2007, 05:14:51 PM
+1 for the WBF reference, Bob!   ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on May 07, 2007, 11:35:44 AM
I actually like moving the 3-pointer back. I remember the ABA, and it's 3-point line was farther back, but it did nothing to deter players like Louie Dampier and Billy Keller from firing at will.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on June 08, 2007, 12:13:43 PM
Just in case there's any lingering doubt on where the North Coast Athletic Conference stands on the politics of Division 3, here's a link to a short article (PDF format) in the Chronicle of Higher Education (http://chronicle.com/) by Earlham College president Doug Bennett, who also serves as the chairman of the NCAC's President's Council.

Division III: Too Big for Its Own Good (http://www.northcoast.org/news/bennettchronicle6-8-07.pdf)

This article can be accessed through the Chronicle's website (subscription required), and also through the sites of Earlham College (http://www.earlham.edu/) and the NCAC (http://www.northcoast.org/) without cost.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Josh Bowerman on June 08, 2007, 06:05:25 PM
You beat me to the punch on this one, David. 

In my 15+ years of being an ardent DIII fan, I think President Bennett has many of the issues just plain backward.  I agree that there's a divide between the high participation rate schools and the low participation rate schools, but in my experience, it's the high rate schools that want more emphasis placed on the athletic experience, not less.  The low rate schools tend to put very little emphasis on participation (a big part of the reason their rates are low) and more on a broader collegiate experience, and THEREIN lies the divide (read Swarthmore Football). 

Furthermore, the low rate schools tend to want access to postseason play, not simply more of it.  The high rate schools tend to want this too (not a focus on the regular season as is suggested)--but the finances of DIII dictate that high rate schools suffer when it comes to postseason participation due to the necessary inclusion of the small rate schools.  What we need is fair access, not equal access.

I also fervently disagree that the divide between the two perspectives is untenable.  It will certainly require give and take on both sides.  Philosophies like President Bennett's tend to have a much more divisive effect than an inclusive one.

Ultimately, I think he's got the issues well identified, but I think he's honestly mis-identified the players.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 08, 2007, 06:36:50 PM
David, thanks for the article.

Josh, your commentary sneaked in ahead of mine.  ;)

As I was reading Dr Bennett's article, I, too, had trouble telling the players by their "numbers on his scorecard".

So schools with a small percentage of athletes encourage focused intense competition...like Wash U (StL) and NYU? Right?   Are there any more multi-talented student athletes in D3 than UAA athletes?

The differences in "culture" don't mesh, and it seems that the "Elites" are losing to "rabble"!  And that doesn't set well!

You have a high concentration school like Beloit, Monmouth or Lake Forest from the Midwest Conference, and they cut the basketball season short by 10%.

I don't think that the participation rate issue even divides the camps on redshirting...  That may be the old "traditionalist 243" versus the NAIA newcomer "177".

It is much harder to win the NCAA's when you have nearly twice as many schools competing as in 1973. 

It reminds me of under-6 soccer.  Every kid "needs" a trophy!

Why are opportunities to participate in the post-season harder to come by?  We just used the NCAA March Madness money to expand the bid allocation ratio from 1:7.5 to 1:6.5, and added the Pool System and AQ's in M&W Golf and M&W Tennis among others.  SCAC Baseball Champion Austin College gets into the playoffs with a losing record versus a very tough schedule because they persevered thru the long season and post season tourney.

Now the Pool system does away with the "good ol' boy" network of at-larges.  Is that the crux of the matter?  The Pool System has given fair and equal access to the playoffs for all 420 schools:  (1) Join a conference of peers. (That should be a good thing;  Wasn't that the reason for founding the Big Ten?) (2) Stabilize the conference (3) Earn the Pool A bid!  Simple!

Honestly, it all looks like the problem is perennially miserable teams of high profile D3 sports (among interested alumni)
read football and trying to take the pressure off the presidents.  Did I mis-read that one?

More comments will be appreciated!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Josh Bowerman on June 08, 2007, 08:23:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 08, 2007, 06:36:50 PM
The Pool System has given fair and equal access to the playoffs for all 420 schools:  (1) Join a conference of peers. (That should be a good thing;  Wasn't that the reason for founding the Big Ten?) (2) Stabilize the conference (3) Earn the Pool A bid!  Simple!

I respectfully disagree with this particular point, Ralph.  The new systems have certainly given equal access to all DIII schools, but there's a big difference between fairness and equality.  Every year, in every sport, VERY deserving teams are left out of the playoffs because of the AQ system and limited Pool B/C slots.  These slots are limited because of the deluge of teams getting in (for the sake of equality) from traditionally weak conferences.  I think it's also pretty hard to rationalize the current mileage restrictions on playoff participation with the fairness side of this arguement.

I don't mind the equality--we need it.  But  we also need to expand the Pool C's to balance the equality with fairness--even if it's only theoretical fairness.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 08, 2007, 08:52:14 PM
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on June 08, 2007, 08:23:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 08, 2007, 06:36:50 PM
The Pool System has given fair and equal access to the playoffs for all 420 schools:  (1) Join a conference of peers. (That should be a good thing;  Wasn't that the reason for founding the Big Ten?) (2) Stabilize the conference (3) Earn the Pool A bid!  Simple!

I respectfully disagree with this particular point, Ralph.  The new systems have certainly given equal access to all DIII schools, but there's a big difference between fairness and equality.  Every year, in every sport, VERY deserving teams are left out of the playoffs because of the AQ system and limited Pool B/C slots.  These slots are limited because of the deluge of teams getting in (for the sake of equality) from traditionally weak conferences.  I think it's also pretty hard to rationalize the current mileage restrictions on playoff participation with the fairness side of this arguement.

I don't mind the equality--we need it.  But  we also need to expand the Pool C's to balance the equality with fairness--even if it's only theoretical fairness.
Josh, the Championship Committee has expanded the playoff bids to one bid for every 6.5 slots in the higher profile sports.

What ratio do you suggest that we use for the playoffs?  If you are suggesting anything over 32 teams for football or 64 teams for other team sports, I would like to hear your thougths about the logistics and the time requirements to conduct the playoffs without extending the seasons, which would be another "ball of wax".

Thanks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 08, 2007, 09:59:36 PM
"At colleges with high participation rates, though, where sports are
a common activity among students, officials want their athletes to
participate in other activities as well: art, music, theater,
community service, politics, and the like."

I see where he is coming from with this idea about high rate schools. If the student athletes aren't involved in other activities then there aren't other activities. I think that was his point in a nutshell on the rates.

"When participation rates are low, colleges can safely encourage
their athletes to focus on sports, giving them the intense and
vigorous athletics experience those students seek. They can do so
without unduly influencing the entire campus, because of the
relatively small number of students who participate in athletics
programs. Such an intense focus has little consequence for the
rest of the campus."

Although athletes in the UAA are very involved, multi-faceted individuals, they are the elite student athletes (a special breed if you will). Also, a devotion to athletics does lead to UAA teams being continuously in the national spotlight. In larger schools (usually with lower rates), it is important for a student to find his/her niche. Although, I always hate stereotyping schools. Bennett should have came with more hard evidence from other schools, instead of stereotyping 420 schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 08, 2007, 10:44:34 PM
Thanks Wydown Blvd. (which is the address for Wash StL and Fontbonne  :) )

I appreciate your amplification of those remarks.

I seriously doubt that the student-athletes at those two institutions are so singularly athletes-only that they don't contribute to other campus functions.

As I reflected on your comments, I then began to analyze the recent college students whom I knew.

Two with whom I have worked were baseball players until they hit their competitive walls...just weren't going to get that much better...

One became President of the Student Government.

The other became a fraternity president and Physics Honor Society president.

They matriculated as student-athletes, but their contributions to the university were much greater off the field.

I think that President Bennett is selling athletes short with his generalizations.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on June 09, 2007, 02:45:17 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but WashU's official street address is Brookings Drive. Wydown Boulevard borders the WashU campus but is not generally used as its address.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 09, 2007, 06:26:33 AM
Quote from: frank uible on June 09, 2007, 02:45:17 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but WashU's official street address is Brookings Drive. Wydown Boulevard borders the WashU campus but is not generally used as its address.
+1 and thanks!  :)

I appreciate the precision.  I remembered Wydown's post prior to the Wash StL-Fontbonne basketball game last winter...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on June 09, 2007, 08:58:47 AM
In the 50s the St. Louis Hawks of the NBA played their home games in WashU's fieldhouse which, I believe, still stands but is not where WashU now plays its basketball games. If you you saw the Fontbonne/WashU game at WashU, then that event occured in its basketball court which was built in the early 80s.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on June 09, 2007, 09:59:37 AM
Quote from: frank uible on June 09, 2007, 08:58:47 AM
In the 50s the St. Louis Hawks of the NBA played their home games in WashU's fieldhouse which, I believe, still stands but is not where WashU now plays its basketball games. If you you saw the Fontbonne/WashU game at WashU, then that event occured in its basketball court which was built in the early 80s.

In the late 1950s I lived in St. Louis. As I recall, for the 1957-58 season, the Hawks played home games in Kiel Auditorium.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on June 09, 2007, 10:20:22 AM
Warren: I should have been more clear and said "some of the St. Louis Hawks' home games".
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on June 09, 2007, 10:25:12 AM
Quote from: frank uible on June 09, 2007, 10:20:22 AM
Warren: I should have been more clear and said "some of the St. Louis Hawks' home games".

No harm done, Frank. BTW if you are familiar with the St. Louis area, you'll recall that in that era Fontbonne was a small, all-women Roman Catholic college, adjacent to the campus of Concordia Seminary in Clayton.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on June 09, 2007, 02:03:12 PM
Warren: I lived in greater St. Louis from 1972-88. My sons attended Wydown Junior High School - now I believe called Wydown Middle School. One son and his 2 children live there now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 09, 2007, 04:49:29 PM
my posting-name is just to show my support for both the SLIAC and UAA (because I am a fan of both Fontbonne and Wash U.)

i saw a couple Wash U students at a Fontbonne-WashU games maybe 5 years ago with some "Wydown Showdown" shirts. Even the WashU v. Webster game was the "Battle of Big Bend"...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on June 09, 2007, 07:41:28 PM
I don't believe NESCAC is dissatisfied with DIII - in response to an October post..
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: bbald eagle on June 10, 2007, 02:58:22 PM
From a profile of San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich in today's Washington Post:

"The people who have known Popovich the longest say he could have remained the coach at Division III Pomona-Pitzer in Southern California for his entire career and been as content as he is coaching the Spurs."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901433.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 11, 2007, 12:24:35 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 08, 2007, 06:36:50 PM
Now the Pool system does away with the "good ol' boy" network of at-larges.  Is that the crux of the matter?  The Pool System has given fair and equal access to the playoffs for all 420 schools:  (1) Join a conference of peers. (That should be a good thing;  Wasn't that the reason for founding the Big Ten?) (2) Stabilize the conference (3) Earn the Pool A bid!  Simple!

Honestly, it all looks like the problem is perennially miserable teams of high profile D3 sports (among interested alumni)
read football and trying to take the pressure off the presidents.  Did I mis-read that one?

Quote from: Josh Bowerman on June 08, 2007, 08:23:15 PM
I respectfully disagree with this particular point, Ralph.  The new systems have certainly given equal access to all DIII schools, but there's a big difference between fairness and equality.  Every year, in every sport, VERY deserving teams are left out of the playoffs because of the AQ system and limited Pool B/C slots.  These slots are limited because of the deluge of teams getting in (for the sake of equality) from traditionally weak conferences.  I think it's also pretty hard to rationalize the current mileage restrictions on playoff participation with the fairness side of this argument.

I don't mind the equality--we need it.  But  we also need to expand the Pool C's to balance the equality with fairness--even if it's only theoretical fairness.

These two quotes seem to reflect one divide (what I see as the main divide) that is being masked by all of these other articles and arguments that keep popping up.

Some schools have traditionally been quite competitive.  In recent years more private schools have come to d3 with much lower tuition and much larger student bodies to compete for these championships.  The old school doesn't like this new challenge and seeks to label these institutions as anti-academics in some form.

However, we also have athletically dominant schools (both large and small, public and private) that continue to harp on the small conferences getting teams into the tournament.

If the point is to provide valuable extracurricular experiences for students, the "fairness" of the tournament should not be based on competitive ability.  Even the money-grubbing D1 tourney gives bids to every conference that meets criteria.  How much more should D3 institutions be supporting the ideal that every student-athlete have a chance to compete.  Pool B is a necessary evil, but no school should have to end their season with a win, but without a championship.

You can't divide it public and private, you can't divide it large and small, you can't even really divide it by the size of the endowment.  I think the basic solution has to be: get along or get out.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 14, 2007, 11:38:22 PM
Here are some interesting issues on the NCAA web site.

One of the schools looking at D3 (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/May_31/sup_6.htm) is Centenary LA, a D-1 in Shreveport and a great addition, probably to the SCAC.  (Centenary is a member of the Associated Colleges of the South (http://www.colleges.org/))

There are also 2 schools in Northwest Georgia (one NAIA 1, one NAIA 2) that would help the GSAC get to 6 (one shy of the AQ without Fisk) and one in Central Kentucky (Berea, the 1999 NAIA-2 Final Four team) and one in Idaho (NAIA-2, 800 students, hmm,  Albertson?)

Working Group on Membership (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4j3CQXJgFjGpvqRqCKOcAFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQiHJHRUUAc0tpTA!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfTFU!?CONTENT_URL=http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/Home_Page?ObjectID=46015&ViewMode=0&PreviewState=1)


(The very informative) Question and Answer Guide (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/May_18_mailing/Question_and_Answer_Guide.pdf)

Review of Discussion (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/May_18_mailing/Review_of_Discussion.pdf)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 15, 2007, 12:48:48 AM
My first thought is that the differences between current D-III and the schools likely to "self-select" to the new D-IV will be those for whom the more restrictive legislative agenda is the key issue.

My cynical side says that throwing in the larger number of required sports is to diffuse any criticism of "elitism".  There are two "peaks" of the number of sports sponsored across D-III.  One peak occurs at 12; the other at 18.

As I look at the conferences with which I have the most familiarity, the SCAC might be inclined to "self-select" to D-IV, but that would push Oglethorpe and Austin College to add several more sports to get to the "18".  In the ASC, McMurry offers 19 sports, but would not likely want the travel hassles of the SCAC, from Abilene TX  to Colorado Springs CO  to Greencastle IN to Sewanee TN.  Conversely, McMurry's lacking a Phi Beta Kappa chapter might also be a "mission/vision" issue for the SCAC members.  So McMurry might be one of the schools offering the most sports in the re-formated D-III.

Thus, it all comes down to more restrictive legislative agendas.  If you want to join the proponents of the new D-IV, then add the sports to get to 18 and join in.  Austin College surely does not wish to relinquish the hard earned membership in the SCAC over the lack of a few sports.  So, we will see Austin College add Men's and Women's Cross Country and Golf and either T&F or Lacrosse to get to 18.

As for Oglethorpe, the document says that 2 northwest Georgia schools that are currently NAIA are exploring D-III.  Oglethorpe can move to the GSAC, which then gets access to the AQ, and the Stormy Petrels do not have a conference game farther than Montgomery AL, just an easy 2 hr 37 minute road trip as the GSAC moves to 7 men's schools. (But no one drives the speed limit from Atlanta to Montgomery on I-85!  Make that a 2 hour road trip once you are on the interstate.   ;))
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on June 15, 2007, 08:11:52 AM
Ralph,

Good job in posting those links to the documents regarding the Future of Division III.  They really are essential reading for folks that want to weigh in on this issue.

It is interesting to know that votes that we have cast during the last five years have been used to determine our philosophy of athletics.  This is one of the things used to identify the divide among the membership.  In casting those votes, I never once looked at them as overriding philosophical statements, rather what was good for our school at the given moment.

The correlation between between the number of sports sponsored by an institution and the desire for more restrictive/less restrictive rules seems to me to make a judgement that I am not sure is there.  I think that discussions around most campuses will center around where the institutions are going that a member most wants to identify with.  Living with the restrictions or adding/dropping programs will most likely be a function of desired compatibility over philosophy. 

In some areas, (like New England because of the number of DIII members in a small area) there is likely to be a shifting of conference membership.  In other areas, where the members are more spread out, some programs may have to make a choice that they don't particularly want to make.

I think that the diversity of Division III has been a great strength rather than an obstacle.  It will be interesting to see a Division that has boasted of its philosophical superiority divide over what really amounts to access to championships.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 15, 2007, 08:34:54 AM
Chattanooga Times Free Press article about Sewanee (http://www.timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/sports.aspx?articleid=16579&zoneid=6).

The reference to the "...demotion to D-IV" is interesting. 

Thanks to  WLU78 on the ODAC board  (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=4747.9195) for the citiation.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on June 15, 2007, 09:27:14 AM
Ralph (and other knowledgeable folks):

In your heart of hearts, do you believe this split will happen?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 15, 2007, 09:46:24 AM
Quote from: joehakes on June 15, 2007, 08:11:52 AM
I think that the diversity of Division III has been a great strength rather than an obstacle.  It will be interesting to see a Division that has boasted of its philosophical superiority divide over what really amounts to access to championships.

Well said.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 15, 2007, 10:14:35 AM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on June 15, 2007, 09:27:14 AM
Ralph (and other knowledgeable folks):

In your heart of hearts, do you believe this split will happen?
Good morning, Warren!

I think that the votes may tell us more about the personalities of the schools than anything that we have seen in the last few years.

The schools at the top of the Directors' Cup don't need the legislation to demonstrate excellence in the student-athlete model.

If this is solely because a school cannot get a Pool C post-season bid in a 1:6.5 ratio scenario, in which 50 of the bids are allocated to Pool A and Pool B qualifiers, then are we not overemphasizing athletics?

I hope that it fails!  I just wonder about the motives of the conferences sponsoring the votes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on June 15, 2007, 10:48:53 AM
Warren,

I do believe that a split (or some form of reorganization) is inevitable.  I hate to say that because I think that the three divisions can provide something for everyone.  The more we dilute the product of college athletics the less meaningful the competition becomes.  At some point, it is not about winning championships, or even about winning.  Winning is a part of the experience for some and striving to win is a part of the experience for others. 

Isn't that the way life is?  We have always said that athletic participation should prepare people for life, but we keep trying to create this mythical "level playing field" that doesn't exist anywhere else.  Is that really preparation for life? 

Accomplishing goals that are progressively set lower and lower don't serve the student-athlete, the institution or the community at large in the long run.

I would like for my institution to have a chance to win a national championship as much as anyone else, but there are so many other good things that occur that it is well worth the effort.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on June 15, 2007, 11:39:27 AM
I must say that the culture of Division III has changed since I was student in the 1980s.  Back then D3 athletics were considered more of a co-curricular activity at most D3 schools, now that has changed since the influx of a number of NAIA schools.  It (D3 athletics) has become more of an enrollment driver than ever before.  If many of these D3 schools had to shut down their athletic department many of them would literally have to close down due to low enrollments.   So what is one to do?

I also agree that the split is inevitable...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 15, 2007, 11:59:08 AM
I agree with RT in noting that the real issues here are the schools/conferences looking for more restrictive regulations versus those who desire fewer regulations.  I also appreciate RT pointing out how the sports sponsorship requirement can "mask" these issues into a much more politically correct split.

I think joehakes is right on in believing that a split is inevitable.  There is a certain portion of D3 that is unhappy and will require some split at some time.  Whether or not it will improve the overall product is debatable, but in the next ten years, as the demographics of fewer students kick in (children of baby boomers vs. children of gen-xers), and fewer males going to college on average than before (who are often the driving forces behind athletics on campuses), the competition to procure enrollment from these males will become far more fierce than we have currently.  This, in turn, will force schools to either use athletics as a recruiting tool (meaning, pushing and promoting successes) or a strong educational tool (in the co-curricular environment).  So the D-IV movement may be spearheaded by schools looking ahead and choosing their approach for this coming demographic event.

I'm really mixed on the D-IV proposals.  I do appreciate the diversity that D-III currently holds, but I can certainly understand the overwhelming nature of the schools that have invested so much in their athletic programs versus those who see it as a continuation of the educational curriculum.  Little Macalester playing football against SJU just isn't right;  both employ far different philosophies as to the role of their athletic departments.  Add WIAC schools to the mix and you have more students and a smaller proportion of athletes to the student body as a whole.  Not that either way is better, but can we really blame the Macalesters of D3 for looking to find a more suitable home?

Yes, getting the shaft is part of life; but continually and repeatedly getting it from your neighbors usually means you find a new neighborhood, and that's what may be occurring here.  You don't often see the small shack on the same block as McMansions, and in terms of athletics spending, we're beginning to see that now. While that can make things interesting within the division, nobody wants to be the guy who lives in the shack, whose lawn is jammed with dandelions, who doesn't shovel his sidewalk, etc.  It's pretty easy to mask funding within a college (Vandy, for example, doesn't even have an athletic department), so it's difficult to split divisions based upon that; but the amount of rules and regulations, and the contents of those policies can also give things away. 

I have no idea where my alma mater would end up under these proposals.  They spend far more resources on athletics than most of their MIAC siblings; however, SJU is a charter member of the conference and probably wouldn't give up the tradition of rivalries in Moorhead, St. Paul, and St. Peter, so it's not that I have a strong opinion on either side of the mythical fence here.  But I do see both sides at work in my own backyard, and can see strong arguments to doing it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 15, 2007, 12:57:55 PM

Honestly, this is going to be petty and selfish, but I wish d3 would do away with football or at least split out the football.  That seems to be where all the trouble is.

I come from a school without football and a region of the country where it's just not important, so I know I don't have the total grasp of how great football is for schools, but isn't this where all the problems arise?

Football is where the disparity appears more and more egregiously than any other sport.  I love the d3 basketball landscape.  I love the small schools that will never have a chance at national prominence and the big schools that battle it out every year.  There is much the same feel in a variety of sports.

I agree that a tiny school should not have to get spanked 88-0 on the football field by a giant school with a huge athletic budget.  This is the best argument I've heard.  All those elite schools that are calling for a split are just masking their desire to win championship more easily behind a rhetoric of academics.  It's not right.

I say just split the division up for football, maybe even throw the "more competitive" schools into D-1AAA.  I like my d3 just where it is.  But of course, I'm just being petty and selfish.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 15, 2007, 02:19:36 PM
Wow!  I just read the last page of posts and realized how much I enjoy the intellectual stimulation that my friends and fellow posters have generated.

This is what makes D-III so much fun!

Great posts, all of you!  And +1 !  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 15, 2007, 02:40:24 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 15, 2007, 12:57:55 PM

Honestly, this is going to be petty and selfish, but I wish d3 would do away with football or at least split out the football.  That seems to be where all the trouble is.

I come from a school without football and a region of the country where it's just not important, so I know I don't have the total grasp of how great football is for schools, but isn't this where all the problems arise?

Football is where the disparity appears more and more egregiously than any other sport.  I love the d3 basketball landscape.  I love the small schools that will never have a chance at national prominence and the big schools that battle it out every year.  There is much the same feel in a variety of sports.

I agree that a tiny school should not have to get spanked 88-0 on the football field by a giant school with a huge athletic budget.  This is the best argument I've heard.  All those elite schools that are calling for a split are just masking their desire to win championship more easily behind a rhetoric of academics.  It's not right.

I say just split the division up for football, maybe even throw the "more competitive" schools into D-1AAA.  I like my d3 just where it is.  But of course, I'm just being petty and selfish.

I think you're on to something there, hoopsfan.  On any given night, school A's five cagers can take on the school B five and beat them.  While talent no doubt makes a huge difference, even the smallest schools with the smallest athletic budgets can field a good hoops team (though depth and funding help, no question about that, there is always room for the underdog).  The sheer size and budgets required for football make it a completely different animal, and while over the course of the regular season, rivalries, depth and resources make upsets possible, it is rare that a underfunded and undermanned team could survive making more than one upset in the football playoffs.  But throughout the history of the NCAA, football has almost always driven the show-- through its formation, through its expansion and divisioning, and even with the BCS in mind.  Ironic, no question, since the NCAA itself makes very little money from football. 

Football is the problem in D-2, also; it costs more than the other sports, and D2 schools are looking to exposure and revenues from the D-1 basketball tournament to solve it.  See UND, USD, NDSU and SDSU for examples of this.  But I think there is no D1-AAA football (D1-AA schools without football); and D1-AA is the Championship Subdivision of D1 football.  But I think your inclination is correct- the NCAA needs to overhaul football from the top down.  Foes of the BCS would likely agree with me on that point.

But just in case, has Pat reserved d4football.com and d4hoops.com?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 15, 2007, 02:42:29 PM

I'm not sure if the new "championship format" did away with it, but there was recently D-1AAA football for D1 schools that don't give scholarships for football.  It was said here that Georgetown, for example, competes in D1AAA football.  Again, I'm not sure if they got lumped into the D1AA championship now, but it does (or did recently) exist.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 15, 2007, 02:43:50 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on June 15, 2007, 02:40:24 PM
But just in case, has Pat reserved d4football.com and d4hoops.com?

Yes, we own the those domains and d4baseball.com. D4sports.com seems to be locked up. We had to wait a long time to get D3sports.com itself.

There is no I-AAA football. There are I-AA teams that do not offer scholarships but there is not subdivision for those schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 15, 2007, 03:02:24 PM
Johnnie, since McMurry has not been a football powerhouse since the 1950's, I have a different take on D3 football.

I think that D3football is about competition and that is why we are seeing schools add it.

The economics bring in so many male students, and the pressure to win the national championship at these schools is not an albatross that MUC or SJU players might have to bear.

The D3 emphasis on winning the conference championship is sufficient.  The players get the "playoff treatment".  Even tho' 50% lose the first weekend, that is a big deal!  They will remember that memorable season for the rest of their lives.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 15, 2007, 03:15:03 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 15, 2007, 02:43:50 PM
There is no I-AAA football. There are I-AA teams that do not offer scholarships but there is not subdivision for those schools.

I stand corrected.  Where were you when we were discussing this last fall?   Oh right, probably running the site or working your full time job.  Such a cop out.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 15, 2007, 03:19:15 PM
Yeah, bummer. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 15, 2007, 03:52:23 PM
Quote from: wilburt on June 15, 2007, 11:39:27 AM
I must say that the culture of Division III has changed since I was student in the 1980s.  Back then D3 athletics were considered more of a co-curricular activity at most D3 schools, now that has changed since the influx of a number of NAIA schools.  It (D3 athletics) has become more of an enrollment driver than ever before.  If many of these D3 schools had to shut down their athletic department many of them would literally have to close down due to low enrollments.   So what is one to do?

I also agree that the split is inevitable...
Wilburt, I have a different interpretation of the culture on most D3 campuses.  You were someone who identified yourself as a student-athlete.  Consider how many of the Title IX women who competed when you were in college were real athletes and not just girls who enjoyed playing games.

How about this Aldine Nimitz (Houston TX) HS junior who has given her verbal commitment to Baylor!

High School Girl Dunking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuDfRzY2Vqw)

I suggest that Title IX has doubled the number of "athletes" by personality type who are now college-aged students (athletes).  Might this change in the number of college students (or percentage of the student body) who see themselves as competent athletes have been an unforeseen change in the make up of the college campus and college environment?  What hath Title IX wrought?

I even suggest that the Swarthmore discontinuation of football was because there was too high of a percentage of "athletes" versus "geeky poets" in the student body.  They could not discontinue any of the programs on the campus that decreased the number of "athletes" who happened to be 46XX, but could have a more strategic impact on the percentage and number of "athletes" by discontinuing football, arguably the most "athletic" (read that aggressive/goon/non-geeky) of the athletes.

All D3 has done is to identify and offer an educational experience for whom the student-athlete identity is most important, and something more organized than intra-murals!

...and more prestigious than the NAIA!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 15, 2007, 04:22:34 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 15, 2007, 03:02:24 PM
Johnnie, since McMurry has not been a football powerhouse since the 1950's, I have a different take on D3 football.

I think that D3football is about competition and that is why we are seeing schools add it.

The economics bring in so many male students, and the pressure to win the national championship at these schools is not an albatross that MUC or SJU players might have to bear.

The D3 emphasis on winning the conference championship is sufficient.  The players get the "playoff treatment".  Even tho' 50% lose the first weekend, that is a big deal!  They will remember that memorable season for the rest of their lives.

I can certainly see your perspective, RT.  With SJU's MIAC success, I can see the conference championship motivation and that being sufficient to provide the "experience" to which we both allude. 

But I would posit that the "experience" requires a certain degree of plausibility of achieving that goal (read: conference parity), and in the West, you are seeing less and less balance in football conference champions.  For example, since 1998,

MIAC: 3 different conference champions, with SJU having 7 titles in that span and Bethel having 3;
IIAC: 3 different conference champions, with Central having 6 titles in that span, and Wartburg with 4;
NWC: 4 different conference champions, but Linfield taking 5 out of 6 in that span.
MWC: 5 different conference champions, but St. Norbert having 7 including 6 of the last 8. 
The WIAC has had 7 different champions, but even then UW-LaCrosse has won 4 titles and Whitewater 3 in that span. 
The SCIAC has had 3 different conference champions in that span, but since 1999 it has been either Oxy or Redlands winning the conference. 

So it has become far more have-have not out here, with the usual suspects generally reloading while the middlers continue to try to knock off the champs.  To be sure, this is likely a cyclical trend to some degree.  However, the schools that have been successful over the past 10 years in football show no signs of letting up.  The resources these front-runners continue to devote toward football means there is a strong uphill battle for the middlers, and the way to move uphill is to devote more resources toward athletics.  But that is contradictory to the traditional D3 philosophy of the STUDENT-athlete.  Hence the whole reform movement, and the movement toward policies on athletics.

So I agree with you in that the NCAA could make the conference championship the bigger deal, but I just don't see that occurring, through experience (as above) and with schools flying all over the country for cross-regional games because they cannot get regional ones.  So the point is furthered by the separatists-- even in a great season for their squad and they could get to the second place in the conference, they are at a disadvantage for a Pool C birth because they didn't fly to play the preeminent team in the XXX region, and someone in the XIAC did.  So the incentive is to spend more money on athletics to get over that hump.  And many schools aren't willing to do that and question whether D3 schools should be doing that.  And so we're back to the beginning again.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 15, 2007, 08:19:54 PM
Johnnie, let me take your example of the dominance of a few teams in the MIAC and look at it from the President's or AD's perspective.

There were 4 of the MIAC 11 in the Director's Cup Top 100 (http://www.miac-online.org/news262.html).

Gusites, Johnnies, Tommies and Olies... are in the Top 100 of the more than 420 schools in D3.

Bethel, Carleton, C-M, Augsburg and Macalester (174th)  finished in the top half of D3. (9 of 12!)  You have strengths all across the MIAC.   I see this as a "half-full" situation!

D3 is working for the MIAC!  I am inclined to say that the strong competition in the MIAC is making everyone work harder!  That is the plus.  The creative destruction (to quote a term by Schumpeter) is making the MIAC earn its excellence every year and keep from getting stale!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 16, 2007, 12:42:15 AM
I have been reviewing the background document (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/May_31/agenda.htm)* from the working group.

The most interesting thing that I have read is on page 150 of 185, in which the document uses the word "conservative" with these conferences:  Centennial, NCAC and NESCAC.    :D

*Please click on Supplement B.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on June 16, 2007, 07:34:39 AM
Ralph,

I was going to admire your tenacity in reading a 185 page document, but there are a lot of picures.    ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 16, 2007, 12:15:07 PM
Quote from: joehakes on June 16, 2007, 07:34:39 AM
Ralph,

I was going to admire your tenacity in reading a 185 page document, but there are a lot of pictures.    ;)
:D
Yes, and those pictures convey some assumptions that I had never heard.  Maybe those are academic projections and not based on previous communication between those institutions and Indianapolis.

Namely, on page 182:

That virtually the entire Kansas Collegiate Athletic Conference would move to D-III.

That Huston-Tillotson College, the HBCU in Austin, would move to D-III.

That 2 NAIA school in MIAA-land are looking at D-III.  (But, do they qualify for D-IV?)

That 2 more schools in greater St Louis are looking.




Section G begins on page 128.

I can read this section and see how the "old guard" makes the case for "why did we let them into the neighborhood?"

Page 132 gives the legislative "orthodoxy" as to what makes a good  "Division IV" member.  There are 14 "yes' votes that the document uses to establish this.  Also, there are the 4 "no" votes that are mentioned: spring football, using a safety "spotter" in gymnastics (who just might coincidentally be the coach), reinstating redshirting, and vote to permit the 8 schools playing D1 in other sports, Colorado College Ice Hockey, JHU lacrosse, etc. to continue "grandfathered" aid.  The perfect score is "18".

The first level of inclusion into the new Division IV would start 20 sponsored sports and an "orthodoxy score" of 14. (This is the 75th %ile in current D3 in these two criteria.  The document calls it conservative selection criteria.  Fifty-four schools, 12.9%, meet these criteria. )

The next level of inclusion into the new Division IV would start at 16 sponsored sports and an "orthodoxy score" of 10.  (This is the 50th %ile in D3 in these two criteria.  One hundred sixty-one, 38.5%, meet these criteria.)

On page 141, the document tells us that 267 (61.5%) of the schools do not meet [both of (my interpretation)] the moderate criteria for inclusion in Division IV. 

On page 144, we see that Ice Hockey, Lacrosse, and Wrestling get ripped apart in the split, as do women's golf, field hockey and women's rowing. 
(Do those finals just meet in the same venue to save administrative overhead?)

On page 150, the document makes the case for the CCIW, the Centennial, the NCAC (sic) and the NESCAC joining the IIAC, SCIAC, and the WIAC (page 153), allowing for some minor exceptions by member institutions in the deviation from the criteria (number of sponsored sports) in the NCAC and (voting deviation) in the OAC (page 154).

On page 155, we have the next round of invitees to the new Division IV.  These conferences had 2/3's of their members meet the moderate criteria.  Adding the MIAA, the MIAC and the Midwest would give the new D-IV eleven core conferences.

Page 156 and 157 show the maps of the new D-IV.

On page 158, the document focuses on the 9 conferences that have unanimously voted opposite the four homogeneously "conservative" conferences (CCIW, Centennial, NCAC, and NESCAC).

These 9 are the AMCC, ASC, Atlantic Women's, Great South (which is officially a women's conference), Lake Michigan, NJAC, NAC, NEAC and USA South.  (Please realize that this now has become a "voting" issue and not sports sponsorship issue, because McMurry sponsors enough sports to meet the moderate critieria.)  (page 158.)

Seven more conferences were one school away from perfect alignment for the newly defined Division III. (I assume that these are alignments are "pre-Landmark Conference shuffle".)   These are the Capital AC, Empire 8, Independents, Little East, Northern Athletic (sic), Skyline, SLIAC. (page 159)

Nine additional conferences fall into the "two-thirds of the members" category.  CUNYAC, CCC, Great Northeast, Heartland, MASCAC, NEWMAC, ODAC, Penn AC, SUNYAC. (page 160)

This gives 25 conferences to constitute the new D-III.

Look who is split down the middle (page 168.)

Liberty League
Middle Atlantic (No distinction between Freedom and Commonwealth is made.)
Northwest Athletic (sic)
President's Athletic (sic)
Southern Collegiate
UAA

That is some of the document.  As most posters have said, it looks like a done deal.

We have "secession" to form D-IV.  As proposed in Supplement #11, the vote for "secession" from the "federation" will occur at the January 2009 convention.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on June 16, 2007, 03:29:20 PM
Thanks, Ralph, and +1.  This is fascinating stuff.  I'm going through the document now.  Lest anyone suspect that there is less than "conservative" unity in the NCAC, the only reason the conference is not in "perfect alignment" with the Centennial, CCIW, and NESCAC is that Wabash College only sponsors (what appears to be) 10 sports, below the "conservative" threshold of 20 sports and the "moderate" level of 16.  This is, of course, because Wabash is a single-gender institution.  Of course, I can't vouch for the voting records of the schools; the document does point out that no conference has a perfect "conservative" score (i.e., every member school with 20 or more sports and a "conservative" vote on at least 14 of the 18 propositions.)  But the language of the document does suggest that Wabash's sports sponsorship is the only bar to the NCAC's perfect adherence to the "moderate" criteria.

I'd like to have been in the room when the presentation reached slide 124, which postulates a new "DIIIA" comprised of 15 conferences including both the NESCAC et alia and the WIAC. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 16, 2007, 06:25:36 PM
Great summary, RT-- thanks for taking the time to do that.  I skimmed the entire document, but you have a pretty good description there.

On my first glance, it *feels* like the Great Lakes states schools plus a few others are splitting from the rest of the division.  You have the West region, essentially, plus the OAC and the NESCAC and a few others looking to get out. 

Also, given that these schools have won the past 14 Stagg Bowls, plus we all know about Trinity's run, implies to me that football has a definite influence on this split.

It is pretty astounding that they would go into such detail regarding the split by including who would go where.  But as far as a done deal, remember that there is one thing missing from all of this: $$$.  Since D3 and D4 require "assistance" from the D1 men's basketball tournament revenues, so split will occur until they can have the funds to do it.  And do we really think D1 schools would gladly fork over a few more million to support their D3/D4 siblings?  I strongly doubt it.

I really don't like the labeling of "conservative" and "moderate" and giving a fluff "score".  Just call them what they are-- schools that tend to favor more restrictions versus schools that tend not to.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 16, 2007, 06:34:23 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on June 16, 2007, 03:29:20 PM
I'd like to have been in the room when the presentation reached slide 124, which postulates a new "DIIIA" comprised of 15 conferences including both the NESCAC et alia and the WIAC. 


I echo that!

In fairness to my cheesehead neighbors, the WIAC squads unanimously voted against the practice of redshirting (though their schools had, until that time, regularly and routinely used the practice) and in favor of most of the reforms in the same manner as the MWC, IIAC and MIAC schools did.  Part of me thinks they do like being classified among the upper Midwest in the same category with Macalester, Carleton, Grinnell, Ripon, and, of course, St. John's.  ;D  There is certainly a general student recruitment advantage, (though not necessarily an athletic one) appropriate or not, when your opponents include the ones I mentioned, while the state schools in Minnesota play against Nebraska-Omaha, Western Washington, and Pittsburg State.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 16, 2007, 08:31:29 PM
Johnnie, as I look at the map, the Texas school whose voting profile was "moderate" is Southwestern, which does not play football.

UMHB, Pacific Lutheran and Linfield do not appear on the "moderate " criteria map either.  (I wonder if my research on the 18 votes would agree with what the committee used.  I notice several deficiencies in the data, e.g., not recognizing College of the Southwest in Hobbs, NM as an NAIA-1 school.)

Bridgewater from the ODAC, Rowan from the NJAC, SJF from the E8 and Lycoming are notable football powers of the last decade that remain in the "new D-3".
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on June 16, 2007, 09:16:48 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on June 16, 2007, 06:34:23 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on June 16, 2007, 03:29:20 PM
I'd like to have been in the room when the presentation reached slide 124, which postulates a new "DIIIA" comprised of 15 conferences including both the NESCAC et alia and the WIAC. 


I echo that!

In fairness to my cheesehead neighbors, the WIAC squads unanimously voted against the practice of redshirting (though their schools had, until that time, regularly and routinely used the practice) and in favor of most of the reforms in the same manner as the MWC, IIAC and MIAC schools did. 

Indeed, on slide 153, the WIAC is revealed to be one of just six conferences with "perfect alignment on the moderate criteria," the others being Centennial, CCIW, IIAC, NESCAC, and SCIAC.  This means that each member of these conferences voted the "conservative line" at least 10 times in the 18 identified votes.  Thus, using either the "sports sponsorship" methodology or the "institutional philosophy" methodology, the WIAC joins the group presumed to be agitating for a split in the D4 or D3A group. 

FYI for those who haven't tried to wade through the document:
D3A core conferences using a "sports sponsorship" methodology (slide 124): Centennial, CCIW, HCAC, IIAC, MIAA, undivided MAC, MWC, NESCAC, NCAC, NWC, OAC, PrAC, SCIAC, UAA, WIAC
(Simplification:  D3A is "many sports," D3 is "fewer sports")
D4 core conferences using a methodology combining "sports sponsorship" and "institutional philosophy" (slides 153ff):  Centennial, CCIW, IIAC, MIAA, MWC, MIAC, NESCAC, NCAC, OAC, SCIAC, WIAC
(Simplification: D4 is "many sports and conservative voting record", while D3 is "fewer sports OR liberal voting record")
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on June 17, 2007, 07:06:53 PM
From what I gather -- though I speak from ignorance -- it seems the future of what is now NCAA D3 is pretty much a dog's breakfast. [If I'm wrong, someone kindly set me straight.]
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 17, 2007, 07:33:24 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on June 17, 2007, 07:06:53 PM
From what I gather -- though I speak from ignorance -- it seems the future of what is now NCAA D3 is pretty much a dog's breakfast. [If I'm wrong, someone kindly set me straight.]
Warren, I am becoming more resigned to this fait accompli.  The really strong schools (endowment, school size, alumni base, tradition) have figured a way to secede and will do it.

I take consolation from the fact that we D3fans have the strongest internet presence among the non-D1's with these websites.  Maybe that is what sustains the momentum that D3 has gained in this decade.

By the eleven conferences pulling out, this automatically takes out one whole layer and one whole week out of the playoffs, and accomplishes one of the goals (shortening the season).  Almost every D-IV championship can be pared to a 16 team tourney,  11 Pool A bids and 5 Pool B's and Pool C's.

Might we see the NESCAC in the D-IV football championships?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on June 17, 2007, 08:42:47 PM
My quess is that now and for the forseeable future football NESCAC likes and will like things the way they now are for it - one of the features of which is no post-season play. I'm not at all sure about its reason for that attitude, and NESCAC ain't talking.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 17, 2007, 11:37:47 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 17, 2007, 07:33:24 PM
Might we see the NESCAC in the D-IV football championships?

Will there be one?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 17, 2007, 11:44:54 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 17, 2007, 11:37:47 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 17, 2007, 07:33:24 PM
Might we see the NESCAC in the D-IV football championships?

Will there be one?
That would be the end of Mount Union's string!  :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on June 18, 2007, 09:01:43 AM
For what it's worth, I posted the URL for that NCAA Working Group in the USCHO Forum. It occasioned a goodly number of responses, some of them a bit on the pointedly unambiguous side. A couple said the future of D3 ice hockey was in jeopardy.

While many of the Forum posters were aware of a possible D3 reorganization, apparently few had heard of the concrete proposals of 31 May.

Thus, Ralph, the fruits of your tireless research have now extended to D3 ice hockey ....  ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 18, 2007, 12:38:35 PM

I know its more complicated than this, but it sure looks like a few snobs sticking their noses up are ruining things for everyone else.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 18, 2007, 01:35:03 PM
"We believe the majority of Division III does not want to subdivide; nor do we want to grow larger. Restricted access to membership enacted at the most recent Convention addresses the pace at which the Division may grow. We find this sufficient."
April 18 letter from The Haverford Group, 26 Division III colleges
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 18, 2007, 01:35:17 PM
"I think that the interest in creating a 'Division IV' has been mostly driven by a relatively small number of people and institutions, and I think that when the NCAA really begins to look at this in a formal matter, people would be surprised how many institutions are not interested in having significant change."
-- Tom Weingartner, University of Chicago AD, to the Chicago Maroon
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 18, 2007, 01:35:35 PM
Just a couple points from the background docs.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 18, 2007, 01:48:26 PM

At least there is some hope.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on June 18, 2007, 06:40:40 PM
Well, if there is a split i think you would have to pencil in the SCAC to go to d4. My guess is your also looking at some conference membership changes if a d4 happens. For instance, I'd agree with the assumption that  Oglethorpe might not stick with the scac. Barring emory or wash u leaving the UAA, not gonna happen unless the uaa has major issues with going to d4,  i'd think UofDallas would get an invite to the SCAC. Also could see the ncac change up and no doubt depauw probably would like to land a spot there which would open another invite for the scac to get back to 12. In that case if Centenary  really is going d3-4, than they probably would land in the scac.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on June 18, 2007, 07:06:58 PM
Quote from: cush on June 18, 2007, 06:40:40 PM
Well, if there is a split i think you would have to pencil in the SCAC to go to d4. My guess is your also looking at some conference membership changes if a d4 happens. For instance, I'd agree with the assumption that  Oglethorpe might not stick with the scac. Barring emory or wash u leaving the UAA, not gonna happen unless the uaa has major issues with going to d4,  i'd think UofDallas would get an invite to the SCAC. Also could see the ncac change up and no doubt depauw probably would like to land a spot there which would open another invite for the scac to get back to 12. In that case if Centenary  really is going d3-4, than they probably would land in the scac.

I don't foresee any changes to the NCAC as they rush headlong towards D4.  I get the impression that these ten colleges form a pretty unified group.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on June 18, 2007, 07:40:06 PM
DC:

You mean to say that Witt and Wooster would be content to play with the "elites"?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 18, 2007, 07:51:42 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on June 18, 2007, 07:06:58 PM
Quote from: cush on June 18, 2007, 06:40:40 PM
Well, if there is a split i think you would have to pencil in the SCAC to go to d4. My guess is your also looking at some conference membership changes if a d4 happens. For instance, I'd agree with the assumption that  Oglethorpe might not stick with the scac. Barring emory or wash u leaving the UAA, not gonna happen unless the uaa has major issues with going to d4,  i'd think UofDallas would get an invite to the SCAC. Also could see the ncac change up and no doubt depauw probably would like to land a spot there which would open another invite for the scac to get back to 12. In that case if Centenary  really is going d3-4, than they probably would land in the scac.

I don't foresee any changes to the NCAC as they rush headlong towards D4.  I get the impression that these ten colleges form a pretty unified group.

Your alma mater is part of this Haverford Group that is quoted above.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on June 18, 2007, 10:33:04 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 18, 2007, 07:51:42 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on June 18, 2007, 07:06:58 PM
Quote from: cush on June 18, 2007, 06:40:40 PM
Well, if there is a split i think you would have to pencil in the SCAC to go to d4. My guess is your also looking at some conference membership changes if a d4 happens. For instance, I'd agree with the assumption that  Oglethorpe might not stick with the scac. Barring emory or wash u leaving the UAA, not gonna happen unless the uaa has major issues with going to d4,  i'd think UofDallas would get an invite to the SCAC. Also could see the ncac change up and no doubt depauw probably would like to land a spot there which would open another invite for the scac to get back to 12. In that case if Centenary  really is going d3-4, than they probably would land in the scac.

I don't foresee any changes to the NCAC as they rush headlong towards D4.  I get the impression that these ten colleges form a pretty unified group.

Your alma mater is part of this Haverford Group that is quoted above.

The individual schools may have their own opinions and desires, but I think the conference will stand as a whole whatever happens.  That's just my impression.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 18, 2007, 10:36:49 PM
I think we will see more than a few conferences split apart if the division splits. Can't say I have any special knowledge of the NCAC, however.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 18, 2007, 11:29:47 PM
Quote from: cush on June 18, 2007, 06:40:40 PM
Well, if there is a split i think you would have to pencil in the SCAC to go to d4. My guess is your also looking at some conference membership changes if a d4 happens. For instance, I'd agree with the assumption that  Oglethorpe might not stick with the scac. Barring emory or wash u leaving the UAA, not gonna happen unless the uaa has major issues with going to d4,  i'd think UofDallas would get an invite to the SCAC. Also could see the ncac change up and no doubt depauw probably would like to land a spot there which would open another invite for the scac to get back to 12. In that case if Centenary  really is going d3-4, than they probably would land in the scac.
cush, welcome aboard!   :)

UDallas needs to add one more women's sport and two more men.

Possible candidates might be indoor track for both or tennis for both or adding men's lacrosse to the women's program.

I think that UDallas is most likely to add Lacrosse outside the SCAC schools, but finding enough lacrosse players in Texas in 2007 is still tough.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 19, 2007, 01:25:51 AM
johnnie_esq (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.255) reports on some of the votes in the document as they occurred in the 2006 convention.

+1!  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: snowboy40 on June 19, 2007, 08:30:51 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 18, 2007, 11:29:47 PM
Quote from: cush on June 18, 2007, 06:40:40 PM
Well, if there is a split i think you would have to pencil in the SCAC to go to d4. My guess is your also looking at some conference membership changes if a d4 happens. For instance, I'd agree with the assumption that  Oglethorpe might not stick with the scac. Barring emory or wash u leaving the UAA, not gonna happen unless the uaa has major issues with going to d4,  i'd think UofDallas would get an invite to the SCAC. Also could see the ncac change up and no doubt depauw probably would like to land a spot there which would open another invite for the scac to get back to 12. In that case if Centenary  really is going d3-4, than they probably would land in the scac.
cush, welcome aboard!   :)

UDallas needs to add one more women's sport and two more men.

Possible candidates might be indoor track for both or tennis for both or adding men's lacrosse to the women's program.

I think that UDallas is most likely to add Lacrosse outside the SCAC schools, but finding enough lacrosse players in Texas in 2007 is still tough.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: snowboy40 on June 19, 2007, 08:40:25 AM
....sorry about that last non-post.....what i meant to say was, if a school like dallas was to add lacrosse as a sport, they may not have that hard of a time coming up with players. there are 64 high school teams in texas plus if you include "bordering states" like colorado (48 teams) and missouri (32 teams), that's really not such a bad pool for your average d3 team especially since, at this point, you are only competing against club teams in the state( not that there's anything wrong with club teams). i did find it interesting (if i read that d3/d4 report correctly) that the projected 10 year growth for lacrosse at the d3 level was one more program. i can't really say i know much about the gathering of statistics, but a ludicrous projection like that makes me wonder how much else in that report is skewered one direction or another.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 19, 2007, 09:56:59 AM
That report is only talking about programs coming from the NAIA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on June 19, 2007, 11:11:09 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 19, 2007, 09:56:59 AM
That report is only talking about programs coming from the NAIA.

The NAIA is kind of like the Sundance Film Channel.  Every once in a while a movie comes on that you've heard of but usually its a bunch of wierd group of projects.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 19, 2007, 01:00:07 PM
I was a little confused by the previous talk about the documents. You guys are so knowledgable about d3 and the NCAA that the lingo was a bit out of my league. (thats a complimnent not a criticism by any means) For anyone else like me, (who is clueless about d3 football) you can check this link for a couple documents from the NYT that explain everything in layman's terms.
Working Group Document (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:1LTtjOwOyaMJ:www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/March_2/sup_b.doc+division+IV+ncaa&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

(Note-- I have modified the post for better "fit" on the screen.  Thanks for the NYT link! -- Ralph Turner)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on June 19, 2007, 02:50:51 PM
Nice finds, those pretty much explain the situation. There does seem to be a civil war going on in d3 which is somewhat confusing since the elite school's have already separated from the non-elites with conference affiliations in d3, don't see the need  to break those conferences out of d3. It could be a real mess with who goes where if a d4 happens. Speaking of changes, after reading those documents, if Berea College goes d3, i could see them get a spot if an opening happens in the scac.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 19, 2007, 02:54:01 PM
Interesting that the 20 people Pennington references cite 150 schools would move over. That doesn't seem to coincide with the 11 conferences that the NCAA survey suggests.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 19, 2007, 03:51:41 PM
Quote from: cush on June 19, 2007, 02:50:51 PM
...
Speaking of changes, after reading those documents, if Berea College goes d3, i could see them get a spot if an opening happens in the scac.
cush, I will assume that you have a reasonable knowledge of Berea.

I know they have the endowment.

But would they want to spend that much time on the airplanes to Texas and Colorado and the Deep South versus the Heartland for D3 or the NCAC for D4?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Nonbiased Observer on June 19, 2007, 05:59:10 PM
My feeling about the NCAC is that it will stick together annd head as a group to the Division that fits the conference philosophy best.

Other than that, my information is gut feeling only.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 19, 2007, 06:14:33 PM
How do the problems of d3 go beyond football, or do they? If you guys already answered this, then refer me to the answer. Through all of this, I can only see the problems via this football lens for different schools (public v. private, rich v. poor, athletic v. academic, male-dominated population v. female-student body population, etc etc). In essence, do the problems infiltrate other sports to the point that it is beyond a football problem? Why not just change the rules/regulations of football?

(in the meantime, i am going to re-read this board from beginning to end to make sure I didnt miss this anwer)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 19, 2007, 06:40:24 PM
Wydown,

The Midwest Conference voluntarily cuts it season short by 10% i.e., play only 22-regular season basketball games.

The SCIAC does not permit off-campus visits. (help  me here on this one...)

I think that this is a more visceral problem.  The "D-IV's" don't like a lot of the teams that are no longer "others" but are now "D-III's" just like them.

The small college arm of the NCAA moved to D-III in 1973 when the NAIA was vibrant.  Look at the schools who competed in the NAIA in the 1960's and 1970's and many of them are now in D-1, D-2 and D3!

For the old guard, D-III has lost its distinction.

The NESCAC stomps most of the D-III competition across the board, but many of the other D-III's are having trouble with access to the championships, (read that, Final Fours).  However, if you look at the Director's Cup standings, most of the Top 50 are D-IV's!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 19, 2007, 07:24:32 PM
For teams that are not able to compete on the national stage, isn't that the glory of the conference championships and all the regional prominence that the NCAA keeps promoting.

I agree with what K-Mack said before:

Quote from: K-Mack on February 27, 2007, 10:41:53 PM
I think the competitiveness varies from region to region and state to state. Any additional division that breaks up closely-knit conferences, or threatens to, is going to have a tough time passing.

A couple of you hit it on the head earlier. D3 is built on the conference structure. National playoffs are just gravy, and in all honesty, are not a reality for a lot of students who devote a lot of time to being good at sports in D3.

Another thing ... a small school staying competitive in football (roster of 60-100 generally), baseball (roster of what, 25?), basketball (roster of 12-15) and, let's say tennis (roster of what, 6-12?) are different things.

When you are talking about moving your entire athletic program to a new subdivision, do you weigh equally how this affects all sports? We're talking about very different requirements ... and perhaps institutions who value their athletic program in different ways (valuable part of student life, tradition, money-maker, recruiting tool, prestige-measurer, etc.)

Important points being:
Region to region
Closely knit conferences
"National playoffs are just gravy"
Entire athletic programs being moved

I don't see how the best interest of the overall student body can be based on such a football related change. Although I don't know the average number of athletes per school, even if 50% are football players, what about the best interest of the other 50%.

Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 13, 2007, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 13, 2007, 01:29:21 PM

It really does seem like its more of a football problem than a d3 problem at this point.

It is a football problem, but it is an all-division football problem, much of which relates to D2's football members, who have higher costs than D3 (scholarships) and comparable revenue (larger student bodies than D3 (tongue-in-cheek pun intended), less alumni support generally)....

..... if the NCAA is smart they will look all-division to fix the football issue and stop the piecemeal division only approach. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 19, 2007, 07:33:41 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 11, 2006, 02:25:13 PM
Wasn't part of D-4 also to eliminate championships and playoffs and just play the season?

Interesting post from early on this board.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 19, 2007, 06:40:24 PM
For the old guard, D-III has lost its distinction.

The NESCAC stomps most of the D-III competition across the board, but many of the other D-III's are having trouble with access to the championships, (read that, Final Fours).  However, if you look at the Director's Cup standings, most of the Top 50 are D-IV's!


And the beauty of D3 in sports other than football is that the national stage gives (in basketball) the NESCAC the opportunity to go up against the UAA's best, or (swimming) Kenyon to compete against Emory, or UC-Santa Cruz to sweep competition in tennis on the national stage. Access to the national stage isnt even necessary for d3, but its a great perk.

While some schools can promote conference achievements (boards hung in gyms for conference championships). Other schools (Williams etc) loss track of the number of conference championships they win and look forward to the national stage.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 19, 2007, 08:01:32 PM
Sorry about this being the third post in a row, but I'm almost finished...

ok. screw the welfare of students thought. no matter where you go in NCAA sports, football from d1-d3 is always about money and investments. For some schools, D3 football as it is, is not the best investment and they are not getting the maximum athetic experience for football players. That, I think, is solely the reason for this change.

That article "Dollars & directions: D-III and D-I schools travel different paths" by Marcus Fitzsimmons of The Daily Times Staff was excellent and helped me piece things together. Its always great to see reporters proficiently cover a d3 subject.

Im finished on catching up on my reading about this issue and is my last post for a little bit.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on June 19, 2007, 08:07:06 PM
As for the Berea College to the scac if an opening happens, it was just a guess after reading they were interested in going d3 but they do have a billion bucks in endowment funds so travel isn't a problem. Before placing anybody in the scac though, alot would depend on who left, which might not happen, in determining who would get invited.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on June 19, 2007, 10:38:40 PM
I'm excited about the prospect of adding Berea College to the D3/D4 rolls.  This is a very honorable school with an exceptional mission, and would be an outstanding addition to any conference.  I believe they have long-standing rivalries with both Transylvania (HCAC) and Centre (SCAC) and might fit with one of these conferences.  However, they might be reluctant to take on the additional travel expense that either of these conferences might require over and above what they incur in the NAIA and KIAC.  Yes, Berea has an enormous endowment, but they have a specific use for it (tuition waivers; no tuition is charged at Berea).  If more travel meant any additional costs to the students (either directly or via fees), that'd probably be a show-stopper too, since Berea's students are of modest means. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 19, 2007, 11:31:27 PM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on June 19, 2007, 07:24:32 PM
For teams that are not able to compete on the national stage, isn't that the glory of the conference championships and all the regional prominence that the NCAA keeps promoting.


QuoteQuote from: smedindy on January 11, 2006, 01:25:13 pm
Wasn't part of D-4 also to eliminate championships and playoffs and just play the season?

Thanks for bringing forward that point again.

For all of the lip service that that receives, does D4 want to eliminate national championships and the only way to do that is to legislate them away?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: K-Mack on June 20, 2007, 01:31:54 AM
Not sure if this has been reposted here, so don't jump down my throat if it has already (just don't have time to read every post, believe it or not)

From the ODAC board, and on-topic:

Quote from: WLU78 on June 14, 2007, 05:54:14 PM
I think this article from the Chattanooga Newspaper posted at the Sewanee website about sums up what is going on in regards to the part I bolded:

Newspaper
From the Chattanooga Times Free Press
Sunday June 10, 2007

Division III dissension

By Darren Epps
Staff Writer

SEWANEE, Tenn. -- Demanding academic standards and an expansive selection of sports programs make the University of the South an ideal NCAA Division III institution, a model of genuine amateur athletics.

But the model is becoming blurred by universities with different interpretations of the Division III mission statement, and the school also known as Sewanee is watching membership and dissension swell.

The fractured membership could result in Sewanee and other traditional schools competing in a new division starting in 2009, possibly under the designation of Division IV or even Division V. Numerous presidents, athletic directors and administrators interviewed said a plan to split Division III, which does not allow athletic scholarships, is imminent when the group meets at January's convention in Nashville.

It's a case of multiplication forcing more dividing.

"It may go to two subdivisions or a fourth division, or potentially even both," NCAA president Myles Brand said. "I think what's happened is that Division III has gotten too big, and there's some philosophical differences within the division that we might do better at treating them separately."

The crux of Division III's civil war is indeed the rising number of universities, now at 450 counting the provisional schools. The influx of schools means a sweeping range of standards concerning admissions, financial aid and the vigor in which Division III programs are pursuing national championships.

Traditional schools like Sewanee want to align with academic peers. Other programs will pursue the athletic spotlight. And even more schools are resistant to change, unwilling to relinquish 80-year-old rivalries or accept a perceived demotion to a potential Division IV.

[deleted remainder to preserve newspaper's copyright]

Link to the article:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/sports.aspx?articleid=16579&zoneid=6 (http://www.timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/sports.aspx?articleid=16579&zoneid=6)

Chattanooga Times Free Press
http://www.timesfreepress.com/



Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: K-Mack on June 20, 2007, 01:50:32 AM
Quote from: cush on June 19, 2007, 02:50:51 PM
Nice finds, those pretty much explain the situation. There does seem to be a civil war going on in d3 which is somewhat confusing since the elite school's have already separated from the non-elites with conference affiliations in d3, don't see the need  to break those conferences out of d3. It could be a real mess with who goes where if a d4 happens.

I pretty much agree with this.

I'm kind of saddened by the whole thing, really. I kind of liked the diversity of institutions in D3 being able to stick to similiar missions and remain competitive with each other, for the most part.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: K-Mack on June 20, 2007, 02:12:03 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 15, 2007, 08:34:54 AM
Chattanooga Times Free Press article about Sewanee (http://www.timesfreepress.com/absolutenm/templates/sports.aspx?articleid=16579&zoneid=6).

The reference to the "...demotion to D-IV" is interesting. 

Thanks to  WLU78 on the ODAC board  (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=4747.9195) for the citiation.

I see this has been touched upon.

Wasn't sure anyone out there actually read this board and the ODAC board, besides Pat.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 20, 2007, 10:08:29 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on June 20, 2007, 02:12:03 AM
I see this has been touched upon.

Wasn't sure anyone out there actually read this board and the ODAC board, besides Pat.

Great something else to do while I'm bored on the job -- skim through the last 300 pages of ODAC football posts! lol
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on June 20, 2007, 10:43:18 AM
I'm sure the muckety mucks at some places wouldn't think of it as a demotion, though.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on June 20, 2007, 12:43:45 PM
Looks like the presidents are not going to stop with just athletics:

Some Colleges to Drop Out of U.S. News Rankings (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/education/20colleges.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
(New York Times, 6/20/2007; registration may be required)

Secession Fever...Catch It!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 20, 2007, 12:53:36 PM

I saw an article about that last fall.  It said this was pretty hard to do, especially for public schools in which many of the statistics are public information.  At that time US News was threatening to print information anyway and continue to rank the schools whether they cooperated or not.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 20, 2007, 07:40:05 PM
The academic ranking issue is a yearly battle for college presidents.  Every year they threaten and issue press releases discussing how bad rankings are, and every year, when their ranking in US News and World report shows some success, their school's marketing department uses it.  I do know that 25 of the 90+ institutions in Canada have already withheld their information for the Canadian ranking equivalent.  That actually has real power up there.

In re: the D-IV with no championships, I don't think this group will go that route.  Do you really foresee Mount Union being moved over with the OAC and volunteering to give up a yearly chance at the football crown?  The exposure alone their football team has brought the school is worth a mint; they wouldn't throw that away by any means.  Same goes with SJU, Linfield, UWW, PLU, and some other West region schools whose playoff wins have been noted in the major regional presses.  I do see D-IV having a much more limited playoff system-- probably fewer teams in the playoffs and fewer playoff weeks. Ironic, given the football status of these schools.

I really can't put any stock into the working group discussions until the money issue is presented.  Even in the working group document, money issues were very much glossed over.  But as we all know, the NC$$ is run by the dollar, and for this to go anywhere, the money issue will wag the dog.  It doesn't matter how big the endowments of the schools that want secession are: they don't want to be paying to play.  So the real question is, will the NCAA agree to split the already meager D2-D3 pot into a third portion?  And how much of a haircut will the other divisions have to take for that?  Will they willingly go along with that?  I have my doubts.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 20, 2007, 07:46:44 PM
Do we know the OAC will go the D-IV route?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on June 20, 2007, 08:19:52 PM
Unless I'm sorely mistaken, it seems that no one knows what will eventually happen anent the possible "reorganization" of NCAA D3 ....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 21, 2007, 12:43:43 AM
2006-07 Directors' Cup Final Standings
No.     School  Points
1.      Williams (Mass.)        1,137.50  D4
2.      Middlebury (Vt.)        1,064.50  D4
3.      Cortland (N.Y.)         892.750 
4.      Amherst (Mass.)         887.250  D4
5.      Washington (Mo.)        845.000  D4
6.      College of New Jersey   793.000 
7.      Wisconsin-La Crosse     718.750 D4
8.      Calvin (Mich.)  713.000  D4
9.      Emory (Ga.)     694.500  D4
10.     Johns Hopkins (Md.)     686.250  D4
11.     Gustavus Adolphus (Minn.)       633.500  D4
12.     Wisconsin-Oshkosh       601.000  D4
13.     Wisconsin-Stevens Point         598.000  D4
14.     New York University     578.000  D4
15.     De Pauw (Ind.)  547.000   D4
16.     Tufts (Mass.)   545.250  D4
17.     Luther (Iowa)   526.000  D4
18.     Wisconsin-Eau Claire    525.000  D4
19.     Keene State (N.H)       501.500
20.     Hope (Mich.)    501.00  D4
21.     ITHACA (N.Y.)   495.750
22.     St. John's (Minn.)      467.000   D4
23.     Messiah (Pa.)   466.500
24.     Wartburg (Iowa)         454.250  D4
25.     UC-Santa Cruz   445.500  ? D4?

Assuming the UAA goes to D4.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 21, 2007, 09:26:31 AM
Is it believed the NJAC will go to D-IV?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 21, 2007, 10:11:47 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 21, 2007, 09:26:31 AM
Is it believed the NJAC will go to D-IV?
My bad!

The voting profile of the NJAC did not match that of the D-IV corps.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 21, 2007, 11:38:14 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 20, 2007, 07:46:44 PM
Do we know the OAC will go the D-IV route?

We don't know anything until it actually occurs.  But pp. 153-155 of Supplement B describes what the working group would consider to be the new D-IV, which lists the OAC as a prime candidate for D-IV, with all of its schools but one meeting the moderate criteria. Given the geographic breakdown of the proposed D-IV, the OAC would fit in nicely with the MIAC, IIAC, WIAC, CCIW, MIAA, and Centennial conferences, giving a very easy band of schools centered around the Great Lakes, with pockets of others in Southern California, New England, and Southeast Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 21, 2007, 11:58:42 AM
The listing of the WIAC in that material should be an indication of what happens to assumptions. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 21, 2007, 12:02:12 PM

Yeah.  Shouldn't that be the big sticking point?  The qualifications they've established for being "elite" also includes the WIAC, which are some of the schools the "elite" wanted to separate from, right?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 21, 2007, 12:16:06 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on June 21, 2007, 12:02:12 PM
the WIAC, which are some of the schools the "elite" wanted to separate from, right?

I think that's a valid assumption.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 21, 2007, 02:41:58 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 21, 2007, 11:58:42 AM
The listing of the WIAC in that material should be an indication of what happens to assumptions. :)

Pat has been a party to more than one of my diatribes regarding my distaste for WIAC schools in the past.    ::)

And here they get lumped in with my beloved MIAC.  It's a conspiracy, I swear!  :o ;D

Shows what I know... ???

In fairness, I was as shocked as anyone when they unanimously voted to do away with redshirts, since most of the WIAC had benefited from them in the past.  However, I think many WIAC fans may point out a disconnect between the athletic departments at their schools and the chancellors at their campuses.  The Chancellors do want their institutions to be categorized as good academic schools, whereas the athletic departments push in a slightly different direction.  In the NCAA, the Presidents/Chancellors hold the votes, while the athletic directors do the work; hence the disconnect is allowed. 

Makes for an interesting irony-- it would be interesting to see UWW take on some of the NESCAC members in football...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 21, 2007, 02:44:02 PM
I think the WIAC wanted to show they could contribute to Division III reforms and be good citizens in this regard.

I'd sure like to give reform-minded schools more time to find common ground with other members before we start carving Division III up.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 21, 2007, 02:44:28 PM
I'm not sure at this point that the elite schools are going to get what they want without breaking away from the NCAA entirely.  They want to decide who qualifies as elite and if they remain in the NCAA all schools will have the ability to meet whatever requirements are set.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 21, 2007, 02:45:13 PM
Whoever goes to the convention holds the votes, Esq. If a CEO decides to attend, that's fine, but mostly ADs vote.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 21, 2007, 03:37:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 21, 2007, 02:45:13 PM
Whoever goes to the convention holds the votes, Esq. If a CEO decides to attend, that's fine, but mostly ADs vote.

I stand corrected then.  Something is sticking in my mind though that the Chancellors of the UW campuses made the votes regarding those specific reform proposals.  My bad.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on June 21, 2007, 03:58:21 PM
Technically, each COO of an institution is the voting delegate.  They may choose to assign their voting privilege to someone else if they do not attend.  There are an increasing number of presidents who now do attend and cast the votes.  At any rate, regardless of who is casting the vote, one would assume that voting positions are discussed in advance of the convention and that no one person is making the decision.

I write up a synopsis of the proposals and the rationale for each proposal with comments about what effect each will bring.  I discuss that with my president and the provost (to whom I report) usually in person, but some years via e-mail.  I give them what I think our insitution's vote should be, but the president has final authority over the vote.

Not all presidents get involved at the same level.  If an AD were voting against the company line, I would think that there would be some trouble.

This is a fascinating discussion and I hope it keeps going.  If this continues to move forward as it most likely will, next January's convention should be extremely interesting and lively.  It looks like the gauntlet, if not already thrown down, has at least be taken out of the pocket for some fresh air.  (Acutally, I don't know where you keep gauntlets when you are not throwng them down, but I am sure that someone will know.  It is the beauty of the board.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on June 21, 2007, 04:02:38 PM
Quote from: joehakes on June 21, 2007, 03:58:21 PM
(Acutally, I don't know where you keep gauntlets when you are not throwng them down, but I am sure that someone will know.  It is the beauty of the board.)

Perhaps on your hands, especially in cold weather?  ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: WLU78 on June 21, 2007, 04:50:41 PM
I am not sure how this fits, but it seems timely given the nature of this discussion.

From the FCS website:  www.collegesportingnews.com (http://www.collegesportingnews.com)

An article about  the future of non-scholarship football in the FCS level:

June 20, 2007

Non-scholarship FCS: The Vision Thing

Charles Burton, CSN Columnist

Non-scholarship football is a part of the Division I Football Championship Subdivision that is frequently misunderstood, sometimes misrepresented, and sometimes even has teams worthy of national rankings.

This tumultuous week – which featured the death of one football conference and the birth of a single, unified home for Division I non-scholarship football – has led to fundamental changes for this part of the FCS.

Importantly, most of these changes are not ones of realignment, but ones of vision.

"The Vision Thing" was delivered last week by the commissioner of the Pioneer Football League, the sole non-scholarship football conference starting in 2008, Patty Viverito. She is also the only commissioner of two FCS conferences, also being the commish of the Gateway Football League.

Weeks before anyone dreamed that St Peter's was going to drop football, Viverito had called a summit to discuss the future of non-scholarship football, inviting all Division I schools that have non-scholarship football and those Division II schools considering it.


For the article in its entirety:

http://collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86333 (http://collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86333)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 21, 2007, 05:31:14 PM
IMHO, Harding (AR) is a D-2 in the Gulf South Conference and is listed as playing non-scholarship football.

For mission and vision, Harding University, Searcy AR (http://www.harding.edu/) should be in the D3 American Southwest Conference East Division.

Harding is a faith-based institution which has ties to the Church of Christ (D-2 Abilene Christian, D-1 David Lipscomb and D-1 Pepperdine as well as NAIA-1 Lubbock Christian University).

I also believe that D-2 Ouachita Baptist University (Arkadelphia, AR) (http://www.obu.edu/) should be, too.  OBU is Southern Baptist like Miss College, LaCollege, ETBU, UMHB, HPU and HSU...peer institutions.

This gives the ASC two full divisions, a nine-member East and an eight member West.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on June 21, 2007, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: WLU78 on June 21, 2007, 04:50:41 PM
I am not sure how this fits, but it seems timely given the nature of this discussion.

From the FCS website:  www.collegesportingnews.com (http://www.collegesportingnews.com)

An article about  the future of non-scholarship football in the FCS level:

June 20, 2007

Non-scholarship FCS: The Vision Thing

Charles Burton, CSN Columnist

Non-scholarship football is a part of the Division I Football Championship Subdivision that is frequently misunderstood, sometimes misrepresented, and sometimes even has teams worthy of national rankings.

This tumultuous week – which featured the death of one football conference and the birth of a single, unified home for Division I non-scholarship football – has led to fundamental changes for this part of the FCS.

Importantly, most of these changes are not ones of realignment, but ones of vision.

"The Vision Thing" was delivered last week by the commissioner of the Pioneer Football League, the sole non-scholarship football conference starting in 2008, Patty Viverito. She is also the only commissioner of two FCS conferences, also being the commish of the Gateway Football League.

Weeks before anyone dreamed that St Peter's was going to drop football, Viverito had called a summit to discuss the future of non-scholarship football, inviting all Division I schools that have non-scholarship football and those Division II schools considering it.


For the article in its entirety:

http://collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86333 (http://collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86333)


Am I missing something?  Isnt the Ivy a non-scholorship division 1 conference, (and most of the Patriot league?)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on June 21, 2007, 08:18:31 PM
Yep.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on June 21, 2007, 10:51:57 PM
The Ivy is probably not counted because they do not participate in the championships in football.  I believe that Lafayette was the last bastion of non-scholarship besides Army in the Patriot League.  Lafayette decided to give limited scholarships over the protests of many in the administration.  The awarding of scholarships at Lafayette was mainly pushed by pressure from Alumni groups.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on June 22, 2007, 02:00:58 AM
I believe that in 2003 Colgate, a non-scholarship member of the Patriot League, found its way to the DIAA championship game.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 22, 2007, 02:35:36 AM
Interesting little interview on the Colgate site. The Colgate AD outright states that he wants football scholarships...

Question: Now that Colgate gives athletic scholarships for hockey and basketball, and other sports, are there plans to give athletic scholarships for football?

Dave's Answer: Presently the Patriot League only allows need-based financial aid in football. Personally I would like to see that change to athletic scholarships because it would increase our recruiting pool.


http://athletics.colgate.edu/askdaveanswersjan.htm
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on June 22, 2007, 05:44:23 AM
Quote from: Knightstalker on June 21, 2007, 10:51:57 PM
The Ivy is probably not counted because they do not participate in the championships in football.  I believe that Lafayette was the last bastion of non-scholarship besides Army in the Patriot League.  Lafayette decided to give limited scholarships over the protests of many in the administration.  The awarding of scholarships at Lafayette was mainly pushed by pressure from Alumni groups.

Im pretty sure Holy Cross (Patriot League) does not give scholorships and that they also are not allowed to participate in the playoffs.  I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 22, 2007, 12:56:34 PM
I think we are talking two different languages.

No schools in the Patriot league gives football scholarships. They only allow need-based financial aid for football players. However, the entire athletic department used to be non-scholarship. (The entire athletic department of the Ivy League is non-scholarship).

Lafeyette was the last hold-out but began giving scholarships in '06. For the Patriot League as a whole, it was basketball first due to pressure from Holy Cross, and then American University entered the conferences and changed everything. American offered scholarships in every sport when they entered (they dont have football). Presently every sport except football offers scholarships (and insert random fact: Colgate doesnt have a baseball team)

I think when Lafeyette crossed over, they cut the amount of students allowed admission via "coaches recommendation" by 25% and pretty much just redistributed the amount of scholarship funds previously delegated to athletes anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_League
http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-realities-part-iv-athletic.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: bill on June 22, 2007, 10:23:00 PM
Wydown has pretty much summed it up here (about the Patriot League)

(I'm a Patriot League Grad and former coach)....

Yes, the sports besides football CAN give out scholarships, but they don't all choose to. Some don't give out the max number of scholarships allowed, but this is on a sport by sport, school by school basis....

I wonder how long the Patriot League will hold out against the grain on football scholarships. I don't think many of the donating alumni (and there are LOTS of them - have any of you seen Lafayette's new facility?) will stand to be beaten by the likes of Monmouth and Albany on a yearly basis....
Then again, this isn't the Patriot League board, is it ? ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on June 22, 2007, 11:37:06 PM
Quote from: bill on June 22, 2007, 10:23:00 PM
Wydown has pretty much summed it up here (about the Patriot League)

(I'm a Patriot League Grad and former coach)....

Yes, the sports besides football CAN give out scholarships, but they don't all choose to. Some don't give out the max number of scholarships allowed, but this is on a sport by sport, school by school basis....

I wonder how long the Patriot League will hold out against the grain on football scholarships. I don't think many of the donating alumni (and there are LOTS of them - have any of you seen Lafayette's new facility?) will stand to be beaten by the likes of Monmouth and Albany on a yearly basis....
Then again, this isn't the Patriot League board, is it ? ;D

I know a lot of Holy Cross alumni feel the same way.  Once a national d1-aa power that could give BC a game everyonce in a while is now a school that stuggles with schools that have had football teams for a few years.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 23, 2007, 01:43:09 AM
It makes me wonder... To make the most of the need-based aid. Hypothetically, so, do you recruit lots of poor smart kids or/and lots of rich smart kids? Or is recruiting the smart middle class student work as long as you cross your fingers and hope he gets an outside merit-based scholarship?

Dealing with factors including both the alumni and the image factor must be interesting. (Alumni factor being the donations back to the school's [athletic] budget; image factor literally being the image/perception of the school)

And then, if some of the other teams, outside of football, don't want to use all of their scholarship money (for whatever reason) do they follow that same thought process (ie: capitalize on the student/family income level)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on June 23, 2007, 07:31:09 AM
I know from trying to keep up with things where I grew up that some Lafayette Alums want to give football scholarships, at least that is what is reported in the express times quite often.  There were also stories that some in the administration wanted to investigate a move to D-III, it seems that was more grumbling than anything else.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on June 23, 2007, 09:53:41 AM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on June 23, 2007, 01:43:09 AM
It makes me wonder... To make the most of the need-based aid. Hypothetically, so, do you recruit lots of poor smart kids or/and lots of rich smart kids? Or is recruiting the smart middle class student work as long as you cross your fingers and hope he gets an outside merit-based scholarship?

Dealing with factors including both the alumni and the image factor must be interesting. (Alumni factor being the donations back to the school's [athletic] budget; image factor literally being the image/perception of the school)

And then, if some of the other teams, outside of football, don't want to use all of their scholarship money (for whatever reason) do they follow that same thought process (ie: capitalize on the student/family income level)

I think its just like division 3 where you can call the director of financial aid and they can give you money if you ask for it.  You tell them you need the money or you kid wont be able to afford to go to that school and the school can simply give you the money (most schools have maximums for "school scholarships". 

It is "need based" but once the initial package is given (or especially if the kid is already enrolled) the financial aid office can basically do what ever they want.

You have to think the average american family that might make 50K-100K a year would not be able to afford 25K-40K a year for a school like Layfayette, Ithaca, Williams, Holy Cross or Curry.  So basically every single family within that kind of income/tuition bracket is most certainly going to need aid.

Im going to say that 90% of the Layfayette football team gets 20K knocked off the 40K tuition right away and then comes up with loans/grants with the rest of the 20K. (Or some of that 20K)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 23, 2007, 11:41:14 AM
So the need-based aid would be pretty liberal (like d3). However, at the academic elite d3 level, a lot schools use merit-based (and not need based) scholarships. But with the Patriot League, the scholarships can't be merit based. If your family makes less than 60,000 and you get into Harvard, you don't have to pay a dime -- as of 2006 with the middle-class initiative plan. But, is the system and formula that liberal for the Patriot League, probably not, although must be pretty liberal.

Based on the FAFSA and federal data, the upper-middle (60k-80k) class would basically have to pay about 10k a year. According to JU's standard of the middle class (50k-100k), the 80k to 100k range is expected to pay almost 20k. At most d3's there are merit based scholarships to assist that group who in reality can't afford to pay 20k a yr for college, but according to the Fed's they can.

(http://www.ed.gov/pubs/collegecosts/handbkp11.html)

The Estimated Total Cost of Education for 2007-08 from Lafeyette is 46k.

And a side-note -- The middle-class American household makes about between like 40k and 50k. The bottom 20% make less than 20k. The top 20% make above 100k. Our ideas of classes are slightly different. If you recruit a low-income kid (under 20k) the "feds pay for everything." If your recruit a rich kid, the "parents pay for everything."

But, my point was just that need-based scholarships for football generate a different thought in recruitment -- one that can also be based in socioeconomic recruitment strategies.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on June 23, 2007, 04:14:58 PM
I think any school can give merit based aid if they want to (academic scholorships) but the school has to make sure that those scholarships are consistant with the general student population, especially at d1 where schools have compliance officers (eg, Leigh has 20 kids getting full rides on "science" scholorships) probably a violation of NCAA rules.

But once that FAFSA stuff is out of the way the schools can give out aid as they seem fit. 

And if you live in Boston or New York and both parents are teachers (combined 100K a year) you might be (and are in the FAFSA) in the upper class bracket, but still would have no way to afford a 46K education. (average houses in those areas are 500K+)  So parents can show mortgage payments etc in order to get more aid after those FAFSA forms are done.

But to respond to your point about recruiting, from what I have learned from seeing many kids go those these schools is that the income is at the bottom of the list in priorities in recruiting kids.  Schools try to get the best players first and getting them into the schools, and then worry about the aid after.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: bill on June 23, 2007, 10:16:36 PM
Although this isn't the direction that I thought this thread was going, I'll try and tie it all together -

One thing that the Ivy's and Patriots do is share their admissions and financial aid information. (Within each league, not across league)
For example, if Holy Cross wants to know how Lafayette got player "X" into school, they can see that - it's reported, financial aid included.
Along with the AI, admissions and aid are very transparent.

I think that's what has gotten quite a bit of D3 in a fuss - Schools not wanting to be associated with one another, and lots of finger pointing about aid packages and admissions standards...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 23, 2007, 11:52:35 PM
Quote from: bill on June 23, 2007, 10:16:36 PM
I think that's what has gotten quite a bit of D3 in a fuss - Schools not wanting to be associated with one another, and lots of finger pointing about aid packages and admissions standards...

I definitely agree there. I've been hearing about it for more than a decade, so I'm sure there was debate about such things before that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 24, 2007, 03:36:25 PM
Yeah sorry for the side-bar. The digression was just investigating socioeconomic diversity in non-scholarship d1. Well heres a d3 connection: For example, Amherst (maybe 3 or 4 years ago?) started a socioeconomic diversity initiative based on family background. Therefore, not only is admission need-blind, but they academically recruit. I know that not all schools can be need-blind. If school-wide scholarship initiatives move towards this, in non-scholarship football (both d1 and d3), it would be easy for a team to reflect the financial aid of a diverse group.

Quote from: bill on June 23, 2007, 10:16:36 PM
One thing that the Ivy's and Patriots do is share their admissions and financial aid information. (Within each league, not across league)
For example, if Holy Cross wants to know how Lafayette got player "X" into school, they can see that - it's reported, financial aid included.
Along with the AI, admissions and aid are very transparent.

That's great. And in turn, makes the league more competitive.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on June 24, 2007, 07:38:17 PM
But not so great for the prospective students since the colleges are not competing for them at the admissions office as vigorously as they otherwise might be.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on June 24, 2007, 09:08:29 PM
With a lack of transparency then a coach competes for a prospect in the admissions office more aggressively? I don't get it.

Instead, using transparency, I think the Coach A knows what Coach B offers and can offer a similar package. And, hypothetically (in the d3 league tradition), School A and School B in League X are compatible schools anyway. Of the student belongs in the league, he/she will get in the school.

Of course it seems that the problems of d3 are between leagues and not within the league anyway...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: kate on June 24, 2007, 10:12:24 PM
Could someone please tell me in the name of academia, why in the world would any school not "want to associate with an other institution"?   How many of these D-3 student athletes go pro anyway?  Especially in division three, the purpose of sports should be to have a great athletic experience to suplement your academic endeavors - to me, to form an athletic conference because you feel superior to your counterparts in other D-3 schools is in a word "Crazy".   Just my opinion, folks
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on June 25, 2007, 08:50:42 AM
Quote from: kate on June 24, 2007, 10:12:24 PM
Could someone please tell me in the name of academia, why in the world would any school not "want to associate with an other institution"?   

Kate, believe it. It's a fact of life in academe.

The chief "offenders" -- if that's the proper term -- commonly are college presidents, often possessed with a gratuitously bloated sense of institutional excellence.

The Centennial Conference was formed, initially for football only, because certain presidents no longer wished to associate with the allegedly [academically] inferior venues in the Middle Atlantic Conference. (The cynic in me says that they were also weary of lopsided gridiron losses to Middle Atlantic teams.  ;))
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on June 25, 2007, 09:45:34 AM
Wydown: Competing by way of financial aid packages. If School A knows that School B is offering Joe Spitzfix a financial aid package worth X and if School A wants Joe badly, then School A may offer Joe a financial aid package worth X+1 and be fairly sure of getting Joe over School B - other things being equal. If School A doesn't have that knowledge, if School A nonetheless wants Joe badly and if School A only knows School B is possibly interested in Joe but does not know the value of any financial aid package which School B is offering Joe, then School A may offer Joe a financial aid package worth X+5 in the hope of securing Joe for School A over School B, and consequently the non-transparent system would have produced a superior offer from School A for Joe.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on June 25, 2007, 11:19:34 AM
Im pretty sure schools dont call each other during the FA process to see which kids are getting what package.  From friends of mine that played and coached at Holy Cross, the schools know for a fact after, but during the recruiting process there is not that much FA competing/changing that we seem to think here.

But I do remember a kid that was looking at a certain Patriot league school in PA, and he when he went to that school and told them that he was now looking at another Patriot league school, the coach was so angry that he started to yell at the kid right there and basically told the kid he was doing the wrong thing as the school had already gotten him in and all that.  It was ugly.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: kate on June 25, 2007, 11:24:44 AM
Now you're talking Warren :)!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: union89 on June 25, 2007, 01:48:20 PM
Quote from: JU on June 25, 2007, 11:19:34 AM
Im pretty sure schools dont call each other during the FA process to see which kids are getting what package.  From friends of mine that played and coached at Holy Cross, the schools know for a fact after, but during the recruiting process there is not that much FA competing/changing that we seem to think here.

But I do remember a kid that was looking at a certain Patriot league school in PA, and he when he went to that school and told them that he was now looking at another Patriot league school, the coach was so angry that he started to yell at the kid right there and basically told the kid he was doing the wrong thing as the school had already gotten him in and all that.  It was ugly.


Utah, when I was getting recruited, I visited WPI.  At the time, the Engineers head coach was a guy named Bob Weiss.  He pulled the same act with me and a number of guys who also attended Union.  During one of the recruiting visits, a player told Coach Weiss that he was also looking at Union.  A couple  minutes later, Weiss got up from behind his desk and said he had to go to the bathroom to, "take a Union."  A bunch of Union alums from that era still use that phrase as a joke to this day.

My sophomore year, I blew out my knee, had surgery, and was on crutches on the sideline for the Union/WPI game.  Coach Weiss ran by me at half-time and laughed, telling me, I looked good.  Many more very classless stories about that guy.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 'gro on June 25, 2007, 02:56:27 PM
I had multiple schools tell me that when the FA package came if it wasn't enough or if another school had a better deal to call them before making a decision because the package could be changed.

Both sides can play the system. Are there NCAA or conference rules against this in DIII?

My brother, who didn't plan on playing sports in college (and therefore had no coaches backing him in admissions) asked Boston U and Northeastern for more aid and got it from BU.  Moral of the story: ask for as much as you can get!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on June 25, 2007, 03:01:11 PM
Let it never be said that D3 doesn't offer athletic "scholarships" when pursuing a prize recruit ....  :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on June 25, 2007, 03:22:17 PM
Yea, like I mentioned in an earlier post, once your in the school all you have to do is ask the FA office for more money and they can basically give it to you (within the limits of school allowed scholarships)

Now, I have to go take a "Union".
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: union89 on June 25, 2007, 03:24:16 PM
Quote from: JU on June 25, 2007, 03:22:17 PM
Yea, like I mentioned in an earlier post, once your in the school all you have to do is ask the FA office for more money and they can basically give it to you (within the limits of school allowed scholarships)

Now, I have to go take a "Union".


+1K because you used it properly in context.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on June 25, 2007, 04:28:46 PM
With the new Financial Aid Reporting System having been in place for two years now, you will not see much changing of packages when it comes to athletes.  The rule has always been that you can't offer more because the prospective student is an athlete.  Now with the reporting it will be apparent that athletes have gotten more if there is dealing taking place.  Unless they do that with all students (and that would be a very poorly run FA office) it will show up.

Financial aid offices are all tightening up--athletes or not. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on June 25, 2007, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: joehakes on June 25, 2007, 04:28:46 PM
With the new Financial Aid Reporting System having been in place for two years now, you will not see much changing of packages when it comes to athletes.  The rule has always been that you can't offer more because the prospective student is an athlete.  Now with the reporting it will be apparent that athletes have gotten more if there is dealing taking place.  Unless they do that with all students (and that would be a very poorly run FA office) it will show up.

Financial aid offices are all tightening up--athletes or not. 

Right but Im going to say that ALL students are going to be calling for more money and you wont notice that much of a difference, especially when many athletes are some of the better students at d3 schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 25, 2007, 05:45:38 PM
I think schools pretty much plan for a group of students who will ask for more aid, and include that in their computations when they budget.  The athletics aid issue doesn't approach this-- if it is an across the board financial aid budget that doesn't take athleticism into account, it is perfectly appropriate by D3 standards.  But where athletes somehow get bigger pieces of the pie because they are athletes, that is a "masked athletics scholarship".   That's what the reporting system is looking for.

The reporting system may indicate problems at bigger schools because of ratio issues-- if athletes are truly getting a little more aid than the student body at large, and there is a large student body, that should show up pretty clearly when multiplied over a large population, whereas, at a small school, that may not show up as well.  They identified this, if I remember correctly, upon their review of the program last summer-- do you count non-traditional students (who typically receive little or no financial aid) into the category that is being weighed?  That would seriously skew the weight the aid of the general student body, especially for mid-size schools that have large graduate or nontraditional programs.  I know it is being addressed, I don't recall offhand how.

Nevertheless, we may never know who the offenders of the financial aid game-players are.  The NCAA, if I again can recall, does not release the names of the schools that are being examined more closely, and the data does not show a trend to date because they've just now received their second year of data. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on June 25, 2007, 06:29:36 PM
Just out of curiosity ... if a D3, non-scholarship, venue wants an athlete, won't it likely find the "appropriate" FA package in order to land her/him? {Or am I possibly being overly cynical? Kindly advise soonest ....}
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 25, 2007, 08:13:02 PM
USA Today article on male practice players in NCAA Women's Athletics.. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2007-06-24-practice-policy_N.htm)

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on June 26, 2007, 12:17:12 AM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on June 25, 2007, 06:29:36 PM
Just out of curiosity ... if a D3, non-scholarship, venue wants an athlete, won't it likely find the "appropriate" FA package in order to land her/him? {Or am I possibly being overly cynical? Kindly advise soonest ....}

Yes*

* = For an individual or a "few" individuals, this can likely occur, assuming the other student athletes receive relatively the same packages as the rest of the student body.  But if there were a practice of doing this for a great number of athletes, and not in relative proportion for non-athletes (for some reason, the 4% differential figure is sticking in my head), the discrepancy should be apparent in the financial aid reporting process, which, in turn, could lead to further review and/or sanction by the NCAA.  So this process isn't perfect, but it is a lot better than the previous system of holding schools on their own honor of playing by the rules.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 26, 2007, 11:41:03 AM
I believe 4% is the threshold the NCAA uses as an acceptable variance, yes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Josh Bowerman on July 02, 2007, 06:14:20 PM
I realize I'm a bit late to the party, but hey--I was on vacation.

When I was at Bucknell, we began awarding "merit" scholarships for athletic ability.  We only awarded these to men's and women's basketball players, though--the participants in the rest of the sports the university sponsored did not receive athletically-based financial aid. 

They may have received merit aid for meeting certain criteria, such as race or geographic location of home, however, as the institution was making a concerted effort to more broadly diversify its student body and was actively making financial aid decisions accordingly (from a merit standpoint).  There may have been some athletes in other sports that received this type of merit aid, but the pool of money available wasn't that large when compared to the number of students applying for aid, so I'd be surprised if there were more than just a handful of students where this was the case.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on July 03, 2007, 09:55:36 PM
Hey Josh. If you don't mind me asking, what year did you graduate from Bucknell? (just trying to finish my mental timeline for this patriot league stuff)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: tmerton on July 04, 2007, 01:12:24 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 25, 2007, 08:13:02 PM
USA Today article on male practice players in NCAA Women's Athletics.. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2007-06-24-practice-policy_N.htm)


Despite itself, the NCAA apparently dodged a bullet on this - at least in Division 1 - click here (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Cabinet+acts+on+male+practice+player+issue+-+06-28-07+update).  Was this not an issue in other divisions?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 04, 2007, 02:43:28 PM
Quote from: tmerton on July 04, 2007, 01:12:24 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 25, 2007, 08:13:02 PM
USA Today article on male practice players in NCAA Women's Athletics.. (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2007-06-24-practice-policy_N.htm)


Despite itself, the NCAA apparently dodged a bullet on this - at least in Division ! - click here (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Cabinet+acts+on+male+practice+player+issue+-+06-28-07+update).  Was this not an issue in other divisions?
Yes, it was, but I am not sure of the status in other Divisions.

I like your comment about dodging the bullet.

"The idealists" inside the NCAA don't comprehend what the most enthusiastic advocates of women's athletes, the coaches, were saying about the use of male players. 

1)  You cannot mimic a taller, stronger opponent if that player is not on your practice roster.

2)  You cannot concentrate on teaching your own offensive and defensive schemes to the bench roster if they are having to run the opponents' schemes.

3)  If you are down to less than 2 full healthy teams, then against whom do you scrimmage? 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 04, 2007, 03:35:40 PM
Historical piece about the re-organization of the NCAA in 1973. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-wide/Unifying+divisions+-+07-02-07+NCAA+News)

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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 04, 2007, 04:21:31 PM
The  State of Division II video short (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_video/committee/d2/presidents_council/Ambrose_Short.html)  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...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 04, 2007, 05:48:42 PM
Wydown -- Josh didn't attend Bucknell, he worked there. For three or four years, until late spring 2006, I think.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 04, 2007, 08:59:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: tmerton on July 05, 2007, 10:16:03 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 05, 2007, 11:16:40 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 04, 2007, 04:21:31 PM
The  State of Division II video short (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_video/committee/d2/presidents_council/Ambrose_Short.html)  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.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 05, 2007, 06:30:14 PM
Great post, johnnie!  +1  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 06, 2007, 08:42:00 AM
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!  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Josh Bowerman on July 08, 2007, 10:10:28 PM
Outstanding post, Johnnie.  Very well put.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 16, 2007, 10:15:05 PM
July 16th News Release (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVKBMpDlQwNTIQz8qJzU9MblSP1jfWz9AvyA3NDSiPN8RANobkoo!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUsvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Division+III/Panel+supports+legislation+for+single-sport+leagues+-+07-16-07+NCAA+News)

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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 16, 2007, 10:18:55 PM
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).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 16, 2007, 10:50:18 PM
Membership Committee sees merit in letting moratorium end. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVKBMpDlQwNTIQz8qJzU9MblSP1jfWz9AvyA3NDSiPN8RANobkoo!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUsvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Division+III/Committee+sees+merit+in+letting+moratorium+end+-+07-16-07+NCAA+News)

Here is another interesting article.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 17, 2007, 08:28:06 AM

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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 18, 2007, 12:33:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 18, 2007, 11:23:50 PM
Legislative Proposals for the Jan 2008 Meeting (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Membership+proposals+submitted+for+consideration+-+07-17-07+update)

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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 26, 2007, 11:40:08 PM
D-III Managment Council Supports Action on Male Practice Players (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Division+III+Management+Council+supports+action+on+male+practice+players+-+7-24-07+-+update)

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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: tmerton on July 27, 2007, 03:47:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 26, 2007, 11:40:08 PM
D-III Managment Council Supports Action on Male Practice Players (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Division+III+Management+Council+supports+action+on+male+practice+players+-+7-24-07+-+update)


Wow.  I thought D3 had dodged the bullet on this but it seems they were just chambering the round.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 28, 2007, 03:52:38 PM
Thanks to y_ jack_lok (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=4409.3405)  for the Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059546/site/newsweek/page/0/) 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?


Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on July 28, 2007, 11:16:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 29, 2007, 09:37:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on July 29, 2007, 09:52:51 AM
It's my ball and I'm not playing with you anymore.  I'm going home!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 29, 2007, 01:07:48 PM
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 (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.829) outlining the various voting and sports-sponsorship blocs.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 29, 2007, 03:48:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 29, 2007, 06:32:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on July 30, 2007, 07:11:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 30, 2007, 09:21:45 AM
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. (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.945)  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) (http://www.d3hoops.com/news.php?date=2007-06-05). 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. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 30, 2007, 11:19:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (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.


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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on July 30, 2007, 02:00:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 30, 2007, 02:43:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on July 30, 2007, 04:47:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 30, 2007, 05:27:38 PM
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?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on July 30, 2007, 05:36:56 PM
Because you have to play nice with your red-headed step-brother.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on July 30, 2007, 06:03:59 PM
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
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 30, 2007, 06:27:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 30, 2007, 06:33:21 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on July 30, 2007, 06:27:00 PMThe only thing that all D-3 schools seem to agree upon is no scholarships based solely on athletics.

Do you think that's really true, or that some schools abide by it as a necessity of NCAA competition?  I bet there would be a number of schools going d2 if it had any sort of competitive stability.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on July 30, 2007, 06:38:10 PM
Ok, ok...so I stand potentially corrected.  So the only thing D3 schools agree upon is that they cannot (or are not allowed to, not that they don't want to) offer scholarships for athletic purposes.   ;D

To take it a step further, is it possible that this means D3 has become too diverse for its own good?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 30, 2007, 08:13:17 PM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on July 30, 2007, 06:03:59 PM
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. How many schools offer higher division sports, i.e Greensboro DIII football, DI basketball.

Greensboro doesn't offer Division I basketball.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on July 30, 2007, 10:33:29 PM
my bad Pat.... I plea insanity
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on July 31, 2007, 12:28:27 AM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on July 30, 2007, 10:33:29 PM
my bad Pat.... I plea insanity

You may be confusing Greensboro College with the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. UNC-Greensboro, which is obviously a public school and which has about 14,000 students (including both undergraduates and grad students), used to be D3 but is now D1. Greensboro College, which is located a quarter-mile east of the UNC-Greensboro campus, is a private school of about 900 students which is affiliated with the United Methodist Church and which competes in D3's USA South Athletic Conference.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on July 31, 2007, 04:32:47 PM
Yes  Gregory thanks.
I have amended my post
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 31, 2007, 12:28:27 AM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on July 30, 2007, 10:33:29 PM
my bad Pat.... I plea insanity

You may be confusing Greensboro College with the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. UNC-Greensboro, which is obviously a public school and which has about 14,000 students (including both undergraduates and grad students), used to be D3 but is now D1. Greensboro College, which is located a quarter-mile east of the UNC-Greensboro campus, is a private school of about 900 students which is affiliated with the United Methodist Church and which competes in D3's USA South Athletic Conference.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: pabegg on August 02, 2007, 04:25:17 PM
Just noticed that the D3 membership committee meeting minutes are finally posted with the official promotion list for provisional membership.

Year 4 moved to Active: Keystone, Texas Tyler, Tri-State, Green Mountain
Year 3 to Year 4: Crown, Maine Presque Isle, Mount Aloysius, Mount Mary, Penn State Berks, Minnesota Morris
Year 2 to Year 4 (skip Year 3): Bethany Lutheran, Northwestern, Purchase, Salem
Year 2 to Year 3: Mitchell, North Central (Minn.), Presentation
Repeat Year 2: La Sierra
Year 1 to Year 2: Lancaster Bible, Lyndon State, Saint Vincent, SUNY Morrisville
Start Year 1: Franciscan U of Steubenville, Geneva, Penn State Harrisburg, Spalding, St. Joseph's NY (presumably the Brooklyn campus), Birmingham Southern

Lincoln Christian has dropped from the list - there's no mention of the NCAA on their web site, so I assume they're out.
Minnesota Crookston has dropped (they were supposed to be starting this year) and looks like they're staying in D2.

As a reminder, schools in years 3 and 4 now count as regional games and figure into championship qualification numbers even though they're still not eligible for the championships. Schools in years 1 and 2 don't count in any championship calculations.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 02, 2007, 09:00:01 PM
pabegg, +1 and thanks!  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on August 02, 2007, 11:51:47 PM
So basically, if Spalding would go undefeated, they'd get nothing and like it???

:D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on August 03, 2007, 07:42:45 AM
So this is your grandson?  Now I know why tigers eat their young.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on August 04, 2007, 10:42:45 PM
Here's links to an article and accompanying column, published July 31 in the Wooster (OH) Daily Record, regarding the potential D3/D4 split.

NCAA examines future of Div. III sports (http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/2333661)
Trying to reclaim original ideals (http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/2333651)

The reporter, Chad Conant, does an excellent job of summing up the issues, and did some research within the NCAC to illuminate some of the points.  He does choose to label what I might call the "traditionalist" schools as "the small schools," which may rankle some nerves (those sensitive to the "big/small" framing of the issue), but I don't think his intention is to actually define the split that way.  Anyway, there are so many tender nerves out there that there's probably no choice of labels which would not upset at least some partisans.  He does an excellent job of framing the NCAC's concerns with D3 as it currently exists, and that alone makes these articles a good read for those interested in this debate.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 04, 2007, 11:01:02 PM

I still think the proposed plans only work to the benefit of the larger schools and more competitive programs.  The small and non-nationally competitive schools will still get lost in the shuffle.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 05, 2007, 12:00:01 AM
Thanks, David.

There is just too much "good stuff" in there.

My cynical side is skeptical that there is much obfuscation.  No drug testing or education proposed in D-IV?  If those are NAIA schools coming over to D-IV, then I cannot imagine an Asbury KY or Berea KY or Azusa Pacific CA not wanting Drug and Alcohol education programs.

What about binge drinking at many D-III venues as it is?

The real question is Pat Coleman's pondering, "what if the WIAC wanted to join the more restrictive division?"
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on August 05, 2007, 12:14:27 AM
Which raises the question: if there IS a split, what is the future of d3sports.com?

Pat, is this a hopelessly premature question, or have you already pondered the future?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 05, 2007, 09:00:14 AM
We own several domains with the numeral 4 in them, just in case.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Nonbiased Observer on August 06, 2007, 05:42:31 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on August 04, 2007, 10:42:45 PM
Here's links to an article and accompanying column, published July 31 in the Wooster (OH) Daily Record, regarding the potential D3/D4 split.

NCAA examines future of Div. III sports (http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/2333661)
Trying to reclaim original ideals (http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/2333651)

The reporter, Chad Conant, does an excellent job of summing up the issues, and did some research within the NCAC to illuminate some of the points.  He does choose to label what I might call the "traditionalist" schools as "the small schools," which may rankle some nerves (those sensitive to the "big/small" framing of the issue), but I don't think his intention is to actually define the split that way.  Anyway, there are so many tender nerves out there that there's probably no choice of labels which would not upset at least some partisans.  He does an excellent job of framing the NCAC's concerns with D3 as it currently exists, and that alone makes these articles a good read for those interested in this debate.

I'll go ahead and out myself. This package was me.

As for the "small schools" reference, i think David took it in a way other than what I'd intended. I was calling the group in general small schools because, well, it's the typical way of referring to the smaller division schools. I wasn't referring to the schools currently in D3 as big schoool or small schools. Hope I don't rankle too many feathers with that line.

To me, the NCAC focus was necessary for two reasons. First, the league is part of the group driving some of the debate. Secondly, I tried to tell my readers why they should give a darn. They should care because the impact of what that decision has on the College of Wooster.

And, by the way, the information that appeared in the graphic came from a chart I pulled from the NCAA Working Group for Membership Issues site. I had a couple readers e-mail me thinging those were my ideas.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 06, 2007, 06:22:19 PM
Mr Conant,

I will assume that Pat Coleman has verified that you are nonbiased observer.

Thank you for the coverage that you provide to D3fans thru your local paper.

I also assumed that the "small schools" appellation was intended to present a friendly (albeit little guy takes on the system) focus for the story.  As we look at the schools requesting a new division, we see schools that pay their coaches more, spend more per athlete, place higher in the Directors' Cup, have larger endowments, etc.  These schools are the proverbial cream of Division III.  The references to Working Group document were active this morning.
I encourage you to share the links.

Post containing the Working Group document links (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.801)

I hope that you can get some responses from the NCAA that address the accounting issues that may be driving this.  Will splitting into two divisions be more cost-efficient? (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.960)

If the split is necessary because of irreconcilable "mission/vision" issues, then telling the truth is best in the long run.

We had 1:7.5 playoff bid ratio until 2005-06, and only increased the Pool C bids when the NCAA gave us the money.  We can go back to that ratio if costs demand it.

Once again, thank you for your contributions.  +1  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Nonbiased Observer on August 06, 2007, 06:32:57 PM
Well, if no one has verified I'm nonbiased observer, then someone else is using my work e-mail as a contact address ....

I'm going to take another look at this next spring at the latest, to see where it has gone and where it is likely to finish. The topic is quite interesting to me.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on August 06, 2007, 07:10:11 PM
If you have not done so already, I would look at the Working Group documents.  While they do not etch anything in stone, it is a truism in Higher Education that what gets written down has a good chance of becoming reality later.  In the article it seems that DIII and DIV (in the new structure) are reversed from perhaps the leading model for change.  DIV would actually become the more restrictive division, really going back to what DIII more originally was. 

There will be models presented to the membership this fall for the purpose of discussion at the January 2008 convention.  By the time spring hits, this will be a much more public story than it is now, because college personnel may need to start looking around to see where their colleagues are going to end up.  The present timetable calls for a vote on the issue at the January 2009 convention, and there will be a strong effort to make that vote happen.  It is hard to judge what people's feelings will be on this, because a lot of folks are not yet fully aware of this committee's work.

It will be very interesting and will blend the philosophical approach and the business approach.  No matter what happens, DIII will be changed somehow at the end of this process.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on August 09, 2007, 12:28:36 AM
Didn't know where else to put this:

Fan sites offer D-II, D-III fans a way to stay involved (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2964245)

Keep up the great work!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FootballFanatic on August 09, 2007, 06:46:03 AM
Nice article. Congrats to all. ::)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 09, 2007, 08:38:48 PM
Four-year Division I Moratorium! (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/newsdetail?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Division+I+Board+enacts+four-year+moratorium+on+accepting+new+members+-+08-09-07+update)

Does the Richter Scale go that high? :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 09, 2007, 08:48:10 PM
Division III Presidents Council (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Division+III+Presidents+Council+supports+male+practice+player+limits,+ends+membership+moratorium+-+08-09-07+update) to support 6 amendments at January 2008 Convention.

Yes -- to restricted male practice players.
Yes -- to banning the use of Text Messaging.
Yes -- to ending the Division III Moratorium.

Full report to be published in NCAA News on August 27th.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 10, 2007, 10:22:25 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 09, 2007, 08:38:48 PM
Four-year Division I Moratorium! (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/newsdetail?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Division+I+Board+enacts+four-year+moratorium+on+accepting+new+members+-+08-09-07+update)

Does the Richter Scale go that high?


wow.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FootballFanatic on August 10, 2007, 11:41:29 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 10, 2007, 10:22:25 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 09, 2007, 08:38:48 PM
Four-year Division I Moratorium! (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/newsdetail?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Division+I+Board+enacts+four-year+moratorium+on+accepting+new+members+-+08-09-07+update)

Does the Richter Scale go that high?


wow.
Incredible news!!!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on August 10, 2007, 12:39:38 PM
WOW.  This is a bad policy move but may be enough to bring the real issues to the forefront.  From Siouxsports.com (http://siouxsports.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8933) (a U of North Dakota message board) they list the following as not affected:

Exploratory year 2007-8
SIU-E
UND
USD
Seattle
Houston Baptist
Bryant
New Haven

4 more years:
Florida Gulf Coast
South Carolina- Upstate
NC Central
Presbyterian

3 more years:
Cal State-Bakersfield
Central Arkansas
Winston-Salem St

Two more years:
Kennesaw St
N Florida
Utah Valley
NJIT

One more year:
NDSU
SDSU

And the following who had expressed interest but had not applied yet are stuck: 

W Georgia
Valdosta St
Tarleton St
N Kentucky
Bellarmine (Ky)
Indiana Pa
Wayne St (Mich)
Harding (Ark)

The moratorium also seems to prevent DI move from schools outside the NCAA, so these schools may also be affected:

Oklahoma City U (NAIA)
British Columbia

This is a huge change, especially since it apparently prevents single-sport reclassification.  That isn't a good thing for D1 hockey, since one of the 6 conferences will likely be forced to disband as a result (CHA). 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 10, 2007, 01:01:55 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on August 10, 2007, 12:39:38 PM
This is a huge change, especially since it apparently prevents single-sport reclassification.  That isn't a good thing for D1 hockey, since one of the 6 conferences will likely be forced to disband as a result (CHA). 

I think it's banning any new single sport reclassification, so if the hockey teams are already D1, they'll get to stay.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on August 10, 2007, 02:16:06 PM
The problem with D1 hockey is that one of the six conferences has only five members (CHA).  Given that the NCAA requires six schools for an autobid, the purpose for the conference is  in doubt.  Since the CHA consists of less name recognition and less overall competition than the WCHA or the CCHA who are near the CHA's geographical footprint, there is no incentive for any existing hockey school to move over.  And if you were to start up a new hockey program at an existing D1 school, it doesn't make sense to go through all the time and expense only to put yourself playing against Alabama-Huntsville in your conference (though playing against Michigan or Minnesota would be worth it).   So this really hurts hockey, especially since there were talks about U British Columbia looking at joining for hockey.

How does this affect D3?  By capping D1, D2 schools are now pinched.  Schools that would have liked to go D1 now will be forced to stay at D2, meaning the bottom may start to drop out of D2.  This could mean further expansion and drifting apart of D3, since an influx of former D2 members may further complicate the already mushy D3 philosophy.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 10, 2007, 02:34:46 PM

Again, it seems like perhaps they should just scrap D2 and start over, increasing the gap between d1 and d2 while lessening the gap between d2 and d3.  Why create a new division, when there's a dying one out there to be reformed?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 10, 2007, 02:57:01 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 10, 2007, 02:34:46 PM

Again, it seems like perhaps they should just scrap D2 and start over, increasing the gap between d1 and d2 while lessening the gap between d2 and d3.  Why create a new division, when there's a dying one out there to be reformed?
Follow the money...

Tarleton State was a charter member of the Texas Intercollegiate Athletic Association (TIAA) as were Austin College, McMurry, Sul Ross State and Trinity when the TIAA formed in 1976.

None of those 5 schools are in the NAIA now.  Tarleton now sees itself as a peer of Sam Houston State, Texas State-San Marcos (Southwest Texas State) and Stephen F Austin State, against whom Tarleton played in the Lone Star Conference in the early 1970's.  (McMurry and Sul Ross State were also in the Lone Star Conference in the early 1970's.)

These schools are trying to grow to "Major" college status.  I am sure that the same case can be made for everyone else on that "wannabe D-I" list.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: tmerton on August 10, 2007, 09:02:38 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 09, 2007, 08:48:10 PM

Yes -- to restricted male practice players.

Ready - Fire - Aim
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 13, 2007, 11:12:07 PM
Division III Working Group Membership Issues -- May 18 Mailing Review of Discussion (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/May_18_mailing/Review_of_Discussion.pdf)

I found this 8-page document that gives one an impression that the migration of the D-IV's might permit the remaining D-III's to become even less restrictive.

I don't want to speculate on what is implied.  There are no specifics given as to the nature of the playoffs in either D-III or D-IV.  The document does state that D-II gets 4.25% of the budget.  D-III gets 3.18%.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FootballFanatic on August 14, 2007, 08:38:24 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 13, 2007, 11:12:07 PM
Division III Working Group Membership Issues -- May 18 Mailing Review of Discussion (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/May_18_mailing/Review_of_Discussion.pdf)

I found this 8-page document that gives one an impression that the migration of the D-IV's might permit the remaining D-III's to become even less restrictive.

I don't want to speculate on what is implied.  There are no specifics given as to the nature of the playoffs in either D-III or D-IV.  The document does state that D-II gets 4.25% of the budget.  D-III gets 3.18%.

This document has some interesting ideas & a great read for D3 football fans. Thank for posting. 8)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on August 14, 2007, 09:46:46 AM
I don't know why but reading NCAA documents always gives me a headache.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on August 14, 2007, 06:01:55 PM
BSC finds life in Division III isn't so simple (http://www.al.com/sports/birminghamnews/rmelick.ssf?/base/sports/1187079582270750.xml&coll=2)

I'm not sure which way the SCAC would be going in a DIII/DIV split but it sounds to me like the Birmingham-Southern AD isn't too interested in a more restrictive DIV.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on August 14, 2007, 07:41:52 PM
Quote from: Ray Melick, The Birmingham NewsSome schools adhere to the spirit of the "non-athletic scholarship" rule, applying the same rules for financial aid to all students across the board, while others seem to make more financial aid available specifically for students who just happen to be top athletes.

What a thing to print in a newspaper, even in what appears to be an op-ed column.  Do you suppose he has solid evidence to back up this accusation?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 14, 2007, 08:26:04 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on August 14, 2007, 07:41:52 PM
Quote from: Ray Melick, The Birmingham NewsSome schools adhere to the spirit of the "non-athletic scholarship" rule, applying the same rules for financial aid to all students across the board, while others seem to make more financial aid available specifically for students who just happen to be top athletes.

What a thing to print in a newspaper, even in what appears to be an op-ed column.  Do you suppose he has solid evidence to back up this accusation?
David, I don't think that he does.  That violation warrants a penalty that is more onerous than anything that the University of Alabama has ever received.

I think that we need to forward this to Pat Coleman who can handle this collegially.  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 14, 2007, 11:56:58 PM
Thanks for the heads-up.

QuoteRay,

You seem to be more of a D-I and pro sports guy, so perhaps you're not aware of the inner workings of Division III.

You wrote in your recent column: "Some schools adhere to the spirit of the "non-athletic scholarship" rule, applying the same rules for financial aid to all students across the board, while others seem to make more financial aid available specifically for students who just happen to be top athletes."

People who follow Division III are aware that the NCAA audits all Division III member institutions to make sure that their financial aid offerings to student-athletes are not out of line with their financial aid to the student body at large. Schools are permitted very little variance. It's unfortunate that you were not aware of this fact when you threw out the above sentence.

I am aware of the concept of a column. However, I know that this sentence would not have passed muster on any desk I ever worked on, and I have worked on the copy desk at USA Today. You have to have some facts rather than just parroting what your source wants you to say.

Pat Coleman
D3football.com
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on August 15, 2007, 12:19:08 AM
Nice reply, Pat.

I was also struck by the paragraph two spots below that one.  While what he says about redshirting is technically correct, I believe he left the impression with most of his readers that some schools DO redshirt, while others do not.  (Of course, I guess even that 'misimpression' would still technically be accurate 'til this year's class graduates!)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 15, 2007, 01:01:30 AM
Well said, Pat. D3 gets little play in major dailies as it is, so that makes it even more important that we hold journalists to the truth when a D3 topic does appear in a large-circulation newspaper.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on August 15, 2007, 08:06:37 AM
Pat,

After reading the article on Birmingham Southern's transition to DIII, it seems evident to me that the columnist didn't really have a topic and just wrote a lazy and uninformative article. 

Did BSC not look at what was required of them before they made the trek to DIII?  I can't believe that they did not.  To blame the NCAA for being "complicated" is almost laughable. It is complicated because it supports a philosophy that is little understood by most folks outside (and some inside) its world.  Articles like this don't educate, they just confuse people more.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on August 15, 2007, 10:39:26 AM
I'd bet that, if we dug a little deeper into Ray Melick's history of columns, we'd find that he was one of the most vocal critics of BSC's move to D3.  Having lost that fight, he's now trying to tell his readers that everything good that was promised turns out to be fallacious.  Not very professional journalism, if you were to ask me.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 15, 2007, 10:48:58 AM
Melick has written on Division III before, but I think Kevin Scarbinsky was the worst offender along those lines.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on August 15, 2007, 10:51:38 AM
Quote from: joehakes on August 15, 2007, 08:06:37 AM
Did BSC not look at what was required of them before they made the trek to DIII? 

One has to believe that the BSC folks knew very well "what was required of them" in making the move up to D3. After all, the move itself was spearheaded by CEO David Pollick, who was earlier president of D3 Lebanon Valley College.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on August 15, 2007, 11:06:18 AM
I think there was a big divide at Birmingham-Southern with going to Division 3 and it seems the AD was on the losing side, his attitude seems to fit better at the Division 1 level. My guess is Birmingham-Southern will follow wherever the majority of SCAC end up. Here's another article:

http://www.al.com/birminghamnews/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1187166115197260.xml&coll=2
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 15, 2007, 12:29:01 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 15, 2007, 10:48:58 AM
Melick has written on Division III before, but I think Kevin Scarbinsky was the worst offender along those lines.
Using the advanced search tools provided by Pat Coleman on these sites, here are the other Ray Melick articles.

Pat Coleman's Welcome to D-III Daily Dose (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2006/05/26/birmingham-southern-welcome-to-division-iii/).  The Melick links are close to the bottom.

Melick article will need additional searching. (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2006/05/18/real-deal-or-the-next-rice/)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 22, 2007, 01:54:56 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2986313



This is a story about a 59 year old man who has made the football team at Sul Ross State.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on August 22, 2007, 01:58:23 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 22, 2007, 01:54:56 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2986313
Should we start a new thread, Grandchildren with grandparents looking to play D-III?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on August 22, 2007, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on August 22, 2007, 01:58:23 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 22, 2007, 01:54:56 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2986313
Should we start a new thread, Grandchildren with grandparents looking to play D-III?

Perhaps instead under a thread entitled "Past and Present of Division III"
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on August 22, 2007, 07:36:38 PM
Hoops Fan, can you at least hint what the link is for before sending D3Sports traffic off to ESPN?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 23, 2007, 08:24:01 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on August 22, 2007, 07:36:38 PM
Hoops Fan, can you at least hint what the link is for before sending D3Sports traffic off to ESPN?


Sorry.  I was in a hurry, but wanted to make sure it gone on here.  I've fixed it now, for what that's worth.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 05, 2007, 05:40:48 PM
Hyperlink to the January 2008 Legislation (https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/PDF/propRpt?propRptSubmit=Generate%20IPOPL&division=3&conventionYear=2008)  The convention is in Nashville, January 11-14, 2008.  I really encourage you to click on the link to read the "Intent" commentary accompanying each piece of legislation.  It does a good job of explaining the reason for the legislation.

My quick summary...

1-1 Legislation co-sponsorship
:  Extending the deadline to Sept 1st to allow time over the summer to find more sponsors.

Sponsors:  AMCC,  ASC, NAthCon

1-2  Recruiting Defining voicemail, IM, faxes, videoconferencing do's and don'ts

Centennial, NEWMAC, D-III Presidents and SAAC

1-3 Recruiting Publicity -- to make the publicity the same for athletes as other students.

MWC, ASC, MIAC, NAthCon

1-4  Academic Support Services
-- Allowing more flexibility in the administration of academic support to athletes.

WIAC, ASC, MIAC, NAthCon

1-5  Post-Season Make-up Games   Rain outs, etc.

WIAC, NAthCon

1-6  Basketball opening date -- move to November 15th, just like D-II

Capital AC, SUNYAC

1-7 Pre-season practice -- Fall sports starting dates

WIAC, NAthCon, SUNYAC

1-8  AQ's for Single-sport Conferences -- especially women's ice hockey

North Atlantic Conference (NAC), MASCAC

1-9  Using Provisional schools to keep a conference's AQ -- essentially a scramble for survival if I interpret the motive by the sponsors.  It also adds value to provisionals who can get into a conference to get games.

NEAC and NAC

Corrections and comments appreciated.
 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 17, 2007, 10:25:06 PM
Division II Regionalization Plan. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Division+II+finalizes+regionalization+plan+-+09-13-07+update)

Today the NCAA announced the Regionalization plan for D-II.

Perhaps they have been reading the scholarly debates on the "Future of Division III" Message Board!    ;)

The Oklahoma Panhandle is ignored, as one who has driven US Hwy 281 on one's way from Texas to the Rockies can understand.   :D

Wyoming has no D-II's (or D-III's FWIW) and so Montana is declared an adjacent state to Colorado.

Enjoy the reading. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 18, 2007, 08:16:53 AM
Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet will evaluate one proposal to expand the football playoff bracket to 24 teams.

Division I Football Championship Subdivision Bracket Expansion (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Division+I+ChampionshipsCompetition+Cabinet+begins+prioritizing+budget+requests+-+09-17-07+update).

Quote
Currently, the FCS bracket has 16 teams, and one proposal calls for an expansion to a 24-team bracket, which has a $990,000 price tag. An alternative proposal seeks to add an opening-round game to the bracket at a cost of $250,000. Bracket expansion also will be considered for men's volleyball, men's water polo and women's rowing.

That is that much less NCAA money to facilitate the move by the NCAC and the other "D-IV's" to secession.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on September 18, 2007, 10:42:32 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 17, 2007, 10:25:06 PM
Wyoming has no D-II's (or D-III's FWIW) and so Montana is declared an adjacent state to Colorado.

Wyoming has no NAIAs, no NCCAAs, no nothing, except for the University of Wyoming, the only 4-year college in the state.  And even it is barely in the state, being a close neighbor and rival of Colorado State.  Still, it's a fairly long drive from Billings to Denver, and a tremendously long drive from, say, Libby to Trinidad!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on September 18, 2007, 11:27:00 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 17, 2007, 10:25:06 PM
Division II Regionalization Plan. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Division+II+finalizes+regionalization+plan+-+09-13-07+update)


The Oklahoma Panhandle is ignored, as one who has driven US Hwy 281 on one's way from Texas to the Rockies can understand.   :D


Sadly, many people ignore everything between the Alleghenys and the Sierra Nevadas, too! Ah, well. Their loss!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on September 18, 2007, 12:09:13 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 18, 2007, 08:16:53 AM

That is that much less NCAA money to facilitate the move by the NCAC and the other "D-IV's" to secession.

Why wouldn't Division I be forced to stay within its budget?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 18, 2007, 12:46:54 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on September 18, 2007, 12:09:13 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 18, 2007, 08:16:53 AM

That is that much less NCAA money to facilitate the move by the NCAC and the other "D-IV's" to secession.

Why wouldn't Division I be forced to stay within its budget?
Good point.

I am just sensitive to any re-allocation of the monies that gives us less.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on September 18, 2007, 12:57:54 PM
Because DI basketball and DIA football make the money, what money they throw to DI non-basketball except for DIA football, DII and DIII is merely a matter of charity and their charity has reached its limits.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on September 18, 2007, 02:05:12 PM
Keep in mind that DI-A football isn't a huge moneymaker for the NCAA.  The Bowls/Schools make the money for football, since the NCAA itself does not sanction the bowl system-- the BCS does a nice job of superimposing its position onto the NCAA in that way.  There is a small operating profit for football, but the big money (bowls) comes from and goes to the schools and conferences and BCS.

So while football is a consideration since the NCAA effectively governs college football, the revenue pretty much comes from D1-A Men's basketball (though lacrosse, hockey and baseball also make some money).

Hopefully, the idea of more money for D1-AA will spur discussion about why D1-AA needs more (influx of former D-2ers), which, in turn will lead to the question about D-2's ability to sustain itself, which, in turn, will bring about the DIII-DIV question, which will bring about the desire to reevaluate the NCAA's structure as a whole. 

Wishful thinking on my part, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 19, 2007, 12:12:23 AM
The SPOPL was released today.

SPOPL is NCAA-ese for Second Publication of Pending Legislation (https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/PDF/propRpt?propRptSubmit=Generate%20SPOPL&division=3&conventionYear=2008).

The Male practice player restriction amendment is on page 13 of 23.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Sabretooth Tiger on September 20, 2007, 01:06:15 PM
Interesting distinctions based on gender, and only running in one direction.  Not sure what impact Title VII or Title IX might have on this proposed rule, or state anti-discrimination laws.  On its face, it seems that it would not pass muster absent some sort of exclusion from equal opportunity laws. 

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 28, 2007, 10:28:14 PM
The current furor over the role of athletics and D-1 style athletics and Rutgers

Professor William C. Dowling (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/education/26education.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

Charges of racism against Dr Dowling by the Rutgers' President (http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070928/NEWS01/70928004)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 02, 2007, 02:40:35 AM
Kathy DeBoer, Executive Director American Volleyball Coaches Assn., talking about Title IX (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_video/TitleIX/35anniversary/TitleIX_Kathy_DeBoer.html).

Title IX, a dialogue of the deaf.  We all talk; we do not listen.

She is not quoted as to what she would "do" to correct the problem.

"Is there going to be another Karch Kiraly?"
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 02, 2007, 08:25:30 AM

What does Karch Kiraly have to do with anything?  What have I missed here?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 02, 2007, 08:43:16 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on October 02, 2007, 08:25:30 AM

What does Karch Kiraly have to do with anything?  What have I missed here?
Google search for Karch Kiraly (http://www.google.com/search?q=Karch+Kiraly&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Kiraly is a 3-time Olympic Gold Medalist in Volleyball and is associated with the growth and popularity of Pro Beach Volleyball.

Ms. DeBoer's rhetorical question has to do with the changes in athletic funding that have occurred with Title IX.   :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 02, 2007, 10:44:54 AM

Gotcha.  I didn't know if there was something more than that.  It does make sense that the volleyball coach would use a volleyball example.  It's too early for me to think that clearly.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on October 04, 2007, 12:03:08 PM
I caught an interesting posting on the Sports law blog (http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2007/10/competitive-balance.html) regarding competitive balance in college sports.  The essence of the article questions whether we really want (and if the NCAA truly fosters) competitive balance in our divisions.  Thought this would be the appropriate forum to bring this up, and while the article does not specifically refer to D-III athletics, the issues posed do translate, and seem relevant as we question moves regarding further subdivision of D-III.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 05, 2007, 12:52:29 AM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on October 04, 2007, 12:03:08 PM
I caught an interesting posting on the Sports law blog (http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2007/10/competitive-balance.html) regarding competitive balance in college sports.  The essence of the article questions whether we really want (and if the NCAA truly fosters) competitive balance in our divisions.  Thought this would be the appropriate forum to bring this up, and while the article does not specifically refer to D-III athletics, the issues posed do translate, and seem relevant as we question moves regarding further subdivision of D-III.
Johnnie, as long as we permit conferences to develop with access to the playoff system, I think that it will continue to foster competitive balance.  The SLIAC is adding football and that champion will have done something special.  So will the champion of the MIAC, the WIAC, the SCIAC, NEFC, etc.  They beat their competitive peers. 

Winning the conference is a big deal.  Only 1 out every 6.5 schools at best makes the playoffs.  For every Kenyon football team, you have a Kenyon swimming team.  I really respect Calvin hoops, but I know that Hope football is better. ;)

If the reason to split D-IV is that we will not be able to sustain a 1:6.5 playoff ratio, and the splitting into two divisions will allow that ratio to continue with reasonable post-season durations, then I can live with the split.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 10, 2007, 08:13:17 PM
D-IV teaser (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Association-Updates/Convention+hosts+forum+on+membership+growth+issues+-+10-10-07+update) on the NCAA web site encouraging registration for the Jan 10-14, 2008 meeting.

The D-IV discussion is scheduled for Saturday, January 12th 2:30-3:30 pm.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 17, 2007, 09:10:44 AM
Here is a update on Shenandoah wanting to join the ODAC. (Courtesy of Shenandoah fan, Uncle Jessie)

http://www.su.edu/pr/publications/sun/Oct17.pdf

Shenandoah has sought membership in the ODAC, (leaving the USA South), for travel reasons as much as anything.  The ODAC gained an 11th male school when Randolph Macon Women's College went co-ed and is now known as Randolph College.

The USA South does not offer championships in all sports in which Shenandoah competes.

The pertinence of this article in the Shenandoah paper to the "Future of D-III" is the concern that the ODAC Presidents state that up to 300 schools are wanting to join D-III.  There is also the concern of schools leaving for the "new D-IV".  This disruption would re-configure all of the schools in the mid-Atlantic and across the country.

The ODAC is awaiting the shuffling before committing to Shenandoah.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on October 17, 2007, 06:05:32 PM
Ralph,

Interesting information in the last two posts...  It will be very interesting to see the information that the committee presents in Januaray.

Also, the Shenandoah and ODAC is interesting... but opening the link up, I was excited to see another school committing to going green (and not just becasue I'm a Brockport fan- LOL).  I work at a school where the president has made it a priority... and our football coach is the face of the campus Go Green campaign.  As a member of our campus Environmental Task Force, it is great to see another school make the commitment!

But the real interesting issue is still what the face of of D-III will be in a few years.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on October 17, 2007, 06:24:46 PM
Ralph et al.:

The next couple of years should be interesting as concerns D3 and a possible D4.
(Isn't there an ancient Chinese curse that goes, "May you live in interesting times"?)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on October 17, 2007, 07:50:24 PM
Shenandoah has or had associate membership in the PnAC for the last few years in some sports. I believe Wesley played them in lacrosse. Of course some the Pnac schools have now departed so I imagine that that conference is also in chaos
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on October 18, 2007, 02:23:29 PM
Warren,

Thanks for the chuckle of that proverb... and I think your correct.

Also, I recall something about being careful what you ask for, as you may get it.

I would bet that some schools may want to rethink their decisions a year or two after making it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2007, 02:35:39 PM
Quote from: Bob Maxwell on October 18, 2007, 02:23:29 PM
Warren,

Thanks for the chuckle of that proverb... and I think your correct.

Also, I recall something about being careful what you ask for, as you may get it.

I would bet that some schools may want to rethink their decisions a year or two after making it.
Yes, how many schools were voting in opposition to the legislation that will re-assess their position and move with the group that wishes to secede?  ???
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: K-Mack on October 19, 2007, 12:48:50 AM
This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.  ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on October 19, 2007, 06:51:03 AM
But it will be interesting...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 19, 2007, 05:23:51 PM
A loud clear voice of sanity from our friends in the MIAC is found in this letter, Supplement No.6 (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/October_2007/sup_6.pdf), from the Working Group on Membership Agenda for the October 11, 2007 meeting (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/October_2007/agenda.pdf).

It is interesting in Supplement No 2 (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/October_2007/sup_2.pdf) how the larger schools/more restrictive policy crowd does not wish to be scene as "seceding".  Rather it seems that they wish to "relegate" the smaller athletic programs with less restrictive criteria to Division IV.

Supplement No. 3 (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/October_2007/sup_3.pdf) outlines some of the budgetary concerns that the "New Division" will have.

Supplement No. 4 (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/October_2007/sup_4.pdf) and Supplement No. 5 (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/October_2007/sup_4.pdf) try to charter a philosophical course for the existence of the new division that will be distinctive from what is currently espoused in Division III.

Supplement No. 7 (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/October_2007/sup_7.pdf) is the Timeline between now and Jan 2009.  Does anyone else get the impression that this will be ultimately voted down by the entire convention in Jan 2009?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 19, 2007, 06:01:22 PM


Maybe D3 should institute championship and bowl subdivisions.  I can't think of something that would make more sense.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on October 20, 2007, 09:41:35 AM
I think that this will be voted down in the convention...

The supplement 6 letter is very interesting and I think they hit the nail on the head with the third point for many schools.  Also, the fourth point is very true, creating a fourth division will cut back the D-III administratie costs, but will create a whole other set of administrative costs...

Good thought provoking reading...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on October 21, 2007, 01:02:15 PM
I go back to the last paragraph of the MIAC's letter, indicating that D3 is bearing the brunt of D1's moratorium on membership additions, and D2's ongoing process for divisional identity.  The consequence is that D3 is left holding the bag while everyone else figures out what they want to do. 

In that sense, perhaps asking for a D4, along with increased funding from the other divisions is not a bad idea, as we are in a position to "need it," regardless of a D3/D4 split actually occurring. 

At the very least, it should give an incentive to the other divisions to figure things out quickly so that we can begin to re-normalize operations again.

The "funding" issues addressed in the supplement are not very well addressed.  They simply note that they could request additional funding from the top divisions (likelihood of success = small) or the institutions that join D-4 could pay their way (likelihood of desire = less than small).  Schools seemed to leave the NAIA for two main reasons:  1.) marketing of the NCAA is very good compared to the NAIA, and 2.) they don't have to pay their way for access to championships.  If we discard one of those, does that eliminate the desire to stay in the NCAA?   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2007, 01:13:21 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on October 21, 2007, 01:02:15 PM
...
  Schools seemed to leave the NAIA for two main reasons:  1.) marketing of the NCAA is very good compared to the NAIA, and 2.) they don't have to pay their way for access to championships. If we discard one of those, does that eliminate the desire to stay in the NCAA?   
May I add #3.  Access to the insurance pool that provides very favorable rates on catastrophic coverage.

Even NAIA-2 schools offer some athletic scholarships.  Going to the pure D-3 model has been much easier in our part of the country.

+1 johnnie_esq
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 30, 2007, 07:32:31 PM
Football at Harvard and Yale (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010928).

Interesting article that describes the academic composition of football players in the Ivies.

Mentions Amherst, Williams and Davidson moving to "no loans".

Freshman footballers at Yale score higher now than the average Yale student 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on November 30, 2007, 08:15:39 PM
Even if the average SAT score of the football team at any of these institutions becomes 100 points greater than that curent for the general student body, you know that there will continue to be many who advocate the elimination of inter-collegiate football there. I can only guess why.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 02, 2007, 08:52:43 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 30, 2007, 07:32:31 PM
Football at Harvard and Yale (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010928).

Interesting article that describes the academic composition of football players in the Ivies.

Mentions Amherst, Williams and Davidson moving to "no loans".

Freshman footballers at Yale score higher now than the average Yale student 10 years ago.

That 50K a year thing is bogus too.  If you live in Boston and you have kids and you are making less than 75K a year in combined income.....you are in trouble.

That number should be increased to 75-100K for two parent families.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on December 08, 2007, 04:53:34 PM
Just the way the supplement's read, sounds like a done deal. Div  III will be split up.
Questions that come to mind.
1. will they go on overall student population or split male/ female by percentage for each sponsored sport ?
2. If a conference has a mixture of large and small athletic programs what to become of the conference ?
    a. small programs forced to find a new conference ?
    b. Why would a large program help to pay for a smaller program to find a new home?
3. Now I wonder if they will pick all-star teams within the conference to play for a championship vs other conferences
    to keep it competitive?

I am sure that the powers to be are trying to keep someone happy.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 10, 2007, 04:32:59 PM
Agenda, October 2007 Meeting of the D-III Management Council (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/management_council/2007-10/sup_5b.pdf)

Here is some recent information on the progression to a new Division or Sub-division.

If you look at page 7, the new division has a whole set of problems about having sufficient teams to hold a championship.  Therefore D-IV might need to combine with D-III in some sports.

There are also major questions about (1) conferences that have split memberships, (2) funding, (3) staffing at the NCAA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joepieters on December 11, 2007, 11:43:21 AM
Help me out here.  Looking at the NCAA docs that have been attached, I see a great deal of discussion about the philosophy and intention of the programs, but no real description of what the fault line is going to be within the current Div III.  Are they intending to split the current Div III membership according to the size of the student population or $$$ spent on the program, or fill in the blank.

And I apologize at the outset, if there is a document that lays out the intended split, I missed it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on December 11, 2007, 04:01:43 PM
Quote from: Joe Wally on December 11, 2007, 11:43:21 AM
Help me out here.  Looking at the NCAA docs that have been attached, I see a great deal of discussion about the philosophy and intention of the programs, but no real description of what the fault line is going to be within the current Div III.  Are they intending to split the current Div III membership according to the size of the student population or $$$ spent on the program, or fill in the blank.

I, too, would like to see the "fault line." If anyone can winkle it out, that person is Ralph Turner (he's supernaturally adept at figuring out the true meaning of the NCAA's turgid prose).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 11, 2007, 04:21:23 PM
As I understand it, two divisions (or sub-divisions, as the case may be) will be established with somewhat different rules, but which school goes where would be entirely up to their choice (not decreed, based on enrollment, endowment, or other such criteria) - true?

Now if the real question was which schools will choose which division, I'll leave that to Ralph for the best available guess, though I'm sure even he doesn't know for sure up and down the line.  My guess would be that a fair number of schools are not themselves yet sure.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 11, 2007, 05:28:44 PM
Thanks for the props, but I also hope that Johnnie esq will jump in on this.

In some ways this whole D-IV vote seems more like a clique of junior high girls who want to have  "like the coolest party, you know," but cannot decide who is good enough to get an invite and are worried that the really important people whom they just need to attend, just may not want to come.  But how can they not want to come to this party, because all of the right people will be there?!?  And we really need all of the right people to be there, so they can help pay for this really nice party where all of the right people will attend.   ;D

One of the background documents in that October 2007 agenda talks philosophically about increasing the participation by athletes in extra-curricular activities other than sports, by cutting back on time spent in sports.  I read the "Insider" blog by Jimmy Bartalotta.  It seems that the "Future of D-III Study Group" want Jimmy to spend less time on one his preferred "S's" (sports), and spend it on some other "S"  ("?stuff?")  that they must deem more contributory to the "DIIIB/D-IV"  philosophy!

(When I read Jimmy's "4 S's", I chuckled.  Back in my residency, we had the easy 80-hour/week rotations, the average 90-hour/week rotations and 110-hour/week rotations (Gynecologic Oncology).  When we were down to just work and sleep as priorities, we considered the "4 S's" as worth 1 REM cycle of sleep.  The four "S's"?  A shave, a shower, a shampoo and a defecation!  :-\ )
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 11, 2007, 06:19:19 PM
Ralph, loved your analogy to the junior high girls - perfect!  Since I'm retired, I don't have to read administrators' memos anymore (almost better than a pension! :o), so I'm counting on you guys for the primary 'stuff'.

BTW, saw Archibald MacLeish's 'J.B.' Sunday.  Cast included UM qb Chad Henne and AA Jake Long.  Even prominent d1 athletes can have 'extra-curricular activities' outside sports if they so choose! ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on December 11, 2007, 08:22:56 PM
Ralph

I remembered the May 31, 2007 Membership meeting. Went back to that and looked at the NAIA enrollment figures, which starts at page 26. Before, we talked about a possible merge, may not be the reason for the latest DIV III subdivision or DIV IV banter.  A quarter of the NAIA schools enrollment is less than thousand while only 10% for DIV III. Then take a look at the locations of NAIA. Just a thought that is might be a way to entice some of those schools to NCAA if a small school div were set up. 

Again just a thought
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on December 11, 2007, 09:43:42 PM
There is a lot more to this than meets the eye.  The choice to go to Division IV will be based on philosophy of program by each institution, although some conferences will likely go en masse.  The differences between the old guard DIII's and the ex-NAIAs that have come in during the past 12-15 years are very real.  When the membership moratorium expires in January there is some expectation that there will be significant inquiry into DIII membership from many of the remaining NAIA teams.  That not only skews the championship access, it also widens the gaps between the different opinions on how things should be run.

Some of that difference in philosophy can be measured in numbers (e.g. number of sports sponsored) and some in other ways.  While the impending split will change the landscape of non-athletic scholarship organizational structure, I believe that it will be a win/win situation in the long run.  The manageability of the current DIII is unwieldy at best.  I don't think that trivializing it as a junior high dance is fair.  Ralph Turner has a lot of insight into things and I won't disrespect him as I have read tons of good posts from him over the years, but this particular issue is pretty important and will affect a major change.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 11, 2007, 10:49:14 PM
Joe, I got two different opinions on my "junior high" dance analogy from (CCIW?) veterans.  That means I must be somewhere close to right (in the middle).   :-\

I used that analogy to depict the angst that this will set off.  What if the NCAC, the Centennial, the IIAC and the Midwest Conference go along with the WIAC and the SCIAC, but not the MIAC or the OAC or the UAA?  I have used the term "secession", because that might be the only way that they can get the funds for the new Division, if the "sub-dividing vote" fails.  What if "all" of New England goes D-IV, because they see themselves as peers of D-IV?  Do the NESCAC, the NEWMAC, Little East, MASCAC, CCC and Great Northeast AC all move as a block?   ???

The SCAC only had one school to "qualify as D-IV" and I have seen its budget allocations per student per sport, and they are not much different from the ASC schools.

Joe, I really wonder what will happen with this.  You have a good point about more NAIA schools moving into D-3 after the moratorium.  You are right about that impact on voting philosophy.  (The CCIW has been on the list of schools that might favor "D-IV" as well.)  I don't want to kill the NAIA, because there is a clear distinction in Texas and Oklahoma between D-II, D-III and the NAIA.  "Viva la distinction!"  And, the SCAC schools were lumped into the D-III schools for the most part by the study document.  I just cannot see the D-III less restrictive group adopting much of the NAIA theory.  Is there significant support in the some NAIA conferences for adopt D-III more completely?

I appreciate old ends' nuance!  This will be complex, and I don't think that we will have an answer in Jan. 2009, if the "D-IV "core" doesn't have what they collectively want.  It would not surprise me for the "D-IV core" to table the report and to re-submit the report back to committee to "look at it again"!

Thanks for the thoughts, all! 

I will acknowledge one thing.  If "splitting" helps increase or improve access to the playoffs, then I am for it.  The fact that that most recent document said that D-IV might not be able to support a playoff by itself, and would accept D-III in a joint playoff, means to me that they just don't like some of D-III.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 11, 2007, 11:00:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 11, 2007, 10:49:14 PM

I will acknowledge one thing.  If "splitting" helps increase or improve access to the playoffs, then I am for it.  The fact that that most recent document said that D-IV might not be able to support a playoff by itself, and would accept D-III in a joint playoff, means to me that they just don't like some of D-III.

Sounds like the NESCAC approach to the whole issue.  We're taking our ball home and are not going to play anymore.  As the game gets near the end, they come back.  Can we play now?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joepieters on December 12, 2007, 08:01:47 AM
It would seem to me that if splitting D-III into III & IV allows similarly situated (i.e., enrollment, funding of sports programs, and funding received from the state) and similarly minded (I mean that in terms of the school's philosophy on sports as a component of its overall mission) schools to compete against one another, and makes the prospect of post season playoffs a more realistic possibility for the members of those Divisions (principally because they are no longer playing in a Division of four hundred schools) that is a positive thing.

The thing that scares me about the whole process is that I never under estimate the propensity of a group of well intentioned people to take a good idea and screw it up.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on December 12, 2007, 08:08:41 AM
Ralph,

I don't know if all the schools in those conferences will move as a block, in fact, I would probably say that they would not.  The GNAC and the MASCAC are not on the list that I have of potential movers, and I would be surprised that the Little East would move.  I also believe that there will be financial support for post-season play as it exists in other divisions.  The access would be enhanced by the split.  

The logistics of geography, number of teams in a certain sport in a certain division, conference makeup and rivalries will all need to be worked out on this, and it will be a big task.  The timetable for implementation will need to recognize that.  The transition will be tough especially when some schools will be on their way out of the division for a couple of years.  But in the long run, I think that it will be the best for the whole of the group.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on December 12, 2007, 09:15:44 AM
Quote from: Joe Wally on December 12, 2007, 08:01:47 AM
The thing that scares me about the whole process is that I never under estimate the propensity of a group of well intentioned people to take a good idea and screw it up.

As Mark Twain observed, a camel is a horse designed by a committee.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 12, 2007, 03:13:52 PM
Quote from: joehakes on December 12, 2007, 08:08:41 AM
Ralph,

I don't know if all the schools in those conferences will move as a block, in fact, I would probably say that they would not.  The GNAC and the MASCAC are not on the list that I have of potential movers, and I would be surprised that the Little East would move.  I also believe that there will be financial support for post-season play as it exists in other divisions.  The access would be enhanced by the split. 

The logistics of geography, number of teams in a certain sport in a certain division, conference makeup and rivalries will all need to be worked out on this, and it will be a big task.  The timetable for implementation will need to recognize that.  The transition will be tough especially when some schools will be on their way out of the division for a couple of years.  But in the long run, I think that it will be the best for the whole of the group.
Joe Hakes, thank you for the remarks.

I agree with the magnitude of the task, and also foresee, wailing and gnashing of teeth.  I share Joe Wally's apprehension of this thing not coming off the way that one might hope.  If one reads the fine print in the Supplement to the agenda, one sees the "escape clause" has been anticipated.  I just wonder what happens to good ol' D3 (unless that question is what prompted the whole initiative in the first place.   :-\  )
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on December 12, 2007, 03:56:53 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 12, 2007, 03:13:52 PM
Quote from: joehakes on December 12, 2007, 08:08:41 AM
Ralph,

I don't know if all the schools in those conferences will move as a block, in fact, I would probably say that they would not.  The GNAC and the MASCAC are not on the list that I have of potential movers, and I would be surprised that the Little East would move.  I also believe that there will be financial support for post-season play as it exists in other divisions.  The access would be enhanced by the split. 

The logistics of geography, number of teams in a certain sport in a certain division, conference makeup and rivalries will all need to be worked out on this, and it will be a big task.  The timetable for implementation will need to recognize that.  The transition will be tough especially when some schools will be on their way out of the division for a couple of years.  But in the long run, I think that it will be the best for the whole of the group.
Joe Hakes, thank you for the remarks.

I agree with the magnitude of the task, and also foresee wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

Yes, it's likely there will be some "wailing and gnashing of teeth." (I wonder who will end up sitting in sackcloth and ashes as an act of full penitence ....)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on December 12, 2007, 04:00:33 PM
There are people, like Ralph, who have a better handle on this than myself I only like to think outside the box once and awhile.

When I get back from being a snowbird, as they call us in FL, I will be out on the road again and see if I can get some insite from some of the college's I deal with. Use the old ask a question on a question thing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on December 15, 2007, 06:54:33 PM
Sorry to be late to the party-- it has been a busy week. 

I like RT's analogy, however cynical it appears.  I liken it more to a split among orthodoxy and progressives in a religious context, but there are a lot of similarities between the two anyway, so splitting hairs isn't necessary.

First off, I don't see the geographic issue as much of a problem since the existing D-3 has been dealing with geographic issues for most of its existence.  In that old report which showed the potential split schools, geography may be an advantage, since most  D4 schools are in and around the Great Lakes and New England (with another pocket in SoCal).

As far as conferences moving together, much will depend upon the conferences themselves and the composition of schools inside the conference.  The WIAC and IIAC and MIAC, for example, are made up of very similar schools to one another inside the conference-- all about the same size, all sponsoring similar number of sports, all similar in structure (private in IIAC/MIAC, public in WIAC) with consistent missions across the schools in the conference (e.g. MIAC schools are religiously affiliated).  By contrast, conferences that are more diverse or with less in common with one another may be pulled apart.

While I am not opposed to the split, I don't like it because of how they are doing it.  Instead of this being an NCAA-wide approach, it is a D3 only initiative.  We aren't addressing the true problem here, but we are bandaiding a proposed fix.  Going alone in this initiative, without bringing in D2 and D1-FCS and D1-AAA, means we are postponing a long-term fix and putting up administrative walls to making those fixes when those divisions are forced to address their issues. 

Not to mention, I think going down this road without a guaranteed funding mechanism is just spinning wheels.  Unless and until the other divisions agree to up the handout to the D3/D4 theory, this is just a lot of talk.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on December 15, 2007, 08:13:35 PM
The DIII Working Group on Membership Issues is working with an association wide Membership Issues group.  It is not strictly a DIII initiative and in fact will require a vote of the association to create a new division.   Again, the potential influx of current NAIA members will provide more than enough members to justify a new division, if we don't have those numbers already.

If the top brass of the NCAA want this to happen, there will be enough money to make this work.  It may be that dues have to go up.  The NCAA dues are really low and don't come near paying for what the Association provides. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 16, 2007, 02:36:23 PM
Great find (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3546.msg835869#msg835869) by Li'l Giant concerning the "split" by VP from (CCIW) Augustana and a response by the President of Earlham (NCAC).

+1!  ;)

A must read from insidehighered.com (http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/12/13/barnds)!

Please click on Li'l Giant's post.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on December 16, 2007, 05:07:07 PM
I think that everyone who has read  past post and others, on this subject, have hit on part of that article and comments. It almost reads like those who wish to split would make all sports, club sports. Make everything on the same level.

I Think this would cause parents and the athlete's to wonder if:
School A- close to home great academics, but no sports teams to speak of
School B- Not close to home Lots of sports with playoffs, oh and good academics also.

An athlete, male or female, could make a choice based on these options. Will it balance out, time will tell.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 16, 2007, 05:54:49 PM
Here is the link to the updated "packet" from the Membership Committee. (Dated 7 Dec 2007)

Click here (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/Home_Page#restruture_videos)

Notes on the presentation.

There are four "cuts" of the membership by different criteria.

1)  Sports sponsorship and enrollment is the first "cut".

2)  The second "cut" comprises the Division III conferences who are anticipated to remain in Division III  (240 schools) by the "Sports Sponsorship, Enrollment and Conference Affiliation" criteria.

On a competition basis, I like the chances of the ASC and the SCAC in what is left of Division III!  The NJAC, MAC and USA South, too.

The "New Grouping" (200 schools) includes the Centennial, the CCIW, the Empire 8, HCAC, IIAC, Landmark, Liberty LEC, MIAA, MWC, MIAC, NESCAC, NEWMAC, NCAC, NWC, ODAC, OAC, Pres AC, SCIAC, UAA, and WIAC.  (Slides 69 and 70.)

3)  The third "cut" involves Sports Sponsorship, Enrollment, and Voting Patterns.  There is no further elaboration of which teams comprise these groupings.

4)  Here is the fourth "cut".  Slides 89 and 90 seem to reflect the "cut" that was present in the previous reports.  This "cut" involves "Sports Sponsorship, Enrollment, Voting Patterns and Conference Affiliation". Of the 42 current D-III conferences, 29 remain in D-III, and 13 move to the New Grouping, e.g., Centennial, CCIW, IIAC, Liberty, MIAA, MWC, MIAC, NESCAC, NCAC, OAC, Pres AC, SCIAC and WIAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on December 16, 2007, 06:14:40 PM
Interesting that the SCAC and NCAC would be divergent, and that the NESCAC and WIAC would be left in D-4, which seems odd.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 16, 2007, 06:37:46 PM
What is the #1 reason there needs to be a split here?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on December 16, 2007, 09:09:18 PM
Great info Ralph.. As I read this it still points to a merge and a split as a done deal. Seems like all they need is the vote. Start planning a D4 or D3a. But then I hope not
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on December 16, 2007, 09:16:06 PM
The number one reason is that 400+ schools in one division makes for an unwieldy management structure.

While diversity can be the division's greatest strength, proponents of the split believe the diversity is beginning to attack the core philosophies of the division-- specifically, the emphasis placed upon athletics in the institutions.  For lack of better examples, the Macalester-type schools believe, and illustrate through their athletic programs, that athletics are a means of developing the student.  The St. John's-type schools seem to indicate through their athletic programs that athletics are a means of developing the school.

I know there are exceptions to this across the board at D-1 and D-2, and even moreso at the D-3 level, but the above philosophy struggle is an association wide issue.  Schools at the D-1 level are so dependent upon athletic revenues that many are afraid to rock the boat; but those at the D-3 level who don't have the same revenue luxuries as even their D-3 contemporaries have nothing to lose and everything to gain by this measure.

I hate to be a naysayer, RT, but I am not swayed at all by the article in the Higher Ed Journal.  The article argues against the split by focusing almost entirely about the "perception" of how D-IV would be seen.  This is completely unvconvincing to me; D-III has been battling perception issues from the start of its existence, and that won't be changed or affected by the split.  Indeed, the remaining D-III experience may be helped by a D-IV, as the "perception" of current D-III is the lowest division and therefore the "bottom of the barrel", so to speak.  As for D-IV, the schools leading the charge are seeming to advocate on a philosophy that being the "bottom of the barrel" is ok, since the intention is to provide some competition, but not the exclusive focus on the competition.  Or put another way, D-IV would be fine with D-III intramural participants-- individuals playing for health/friendship/love-- and thus "participation" is immaterial to "recruiting" those athletes whose choice is to go to SJU and sit on the bench or go to Macalester and play varsity.

The most difficult thing is that we don't know how many schools would actually sign onto this D-4 option.  While the MIAC has been mentioned as one, for example, we have seen a letter from the conference telling the group to slow down.  So they may not go.  The WIAC, as mentioned, seems an odd fit given their public status and size of their schools.  The SCIAC is geographically isolated under those proposals (again!).  So it is tough to talk about the D-IV without knowing who really is leading the charge and who is actually following it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 16, 2007, 09:35:45 PM
Thanks for the comments, all!

I wonder how many follow the NCAC's lead.  And, if the NCAC cannot get enough teams/conferences to follow, what is their alternative?  To table the motion and send it back to committee?  That is why I thought that the juxtaposition of Earlahm and Augustana was so interesting.  (Thanks again to Li'l Giant for posting the linl.)

I thought there was some merit to the second proposal and to the third.  Those seem to focus on statistical truisms about size and number of sports sponsored.

If the D-IV's take off and create their own division, and we in D-III can keep the 1:6.5  ratio in access to the playoffs, then it probably works out for all.

Are there economies of scale to having the D-III and the D-IV playoffs in the same location?  Yes, I can see that. 

I think that the uncertainty amongst the "wannabe D-IV's" and the wording of the "escape clause" is what keeps D-IV in turmoil for however long it takes for the bigger sociological issues that Mr Barnds raises to settle out.

Johnnie, you captured the Macalester/SJU contrast succinctly!

Karma to all!  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 16, 2007, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 16, 2007, 06:14:40 PM
Interesting that the SCAC and NCAC would be divergent, and that the NESCAC and WIAC would be left in D-4, which seems odd.
smed, the SCAC has some schools with sports sponsorship issues, some with voting issues, and I think that the southern schools are facing a different sociological/ cultural emphasis on sports in society.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 16, 2007, 09:43:09 PM
But is this going to mean a team like Keynon Swimming can choose to stay d3 but the rest of their sports go d4?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pirat on December 16, 2007, 09:58:12 PM
I heard the NCAA when they said it would not be their intent to fracture the individual conferences.  But being from my part of the world, that might be unavoidable. Fracturing of individual conferences scares me and I can see the NWC starting the good fight all over again.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on December 16, 2007, 10:04:37 PM
What if self-selection results in 50 colleges going to Division A and 450 going to Division B?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 16, 2007, 10:29:45 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 16, 2007, 10:04:37 PM
What if self-selection results in 50 colleges going to Division A and 450 going to Division B?
The Working Group identified 150 as the minimum number of schools to have a viable "new grouping".

There are four core conferences that align themselves most consistently on the most restrictive issues.  I remember the Centennial and the NCAC as being 2 of them.

Quote from: Jonny Utah on December 16, 2007, 09:43:09 PM
But is this going to mean a team like Keynon Swimming can choose to stay d3 but the rest of their sports go d4?
I understand that D-IV will establish its own legislation and guidelines.

Who knows?  D-III might require that all participants in their championships be D-III members, unless they have a "grandfathered" sport like Colorado College Ice Hockey!

If one looks at the Directors Cup data, there is cause to believe that the remaining D-3's will say "good riddance", unless there are funding implications.

As I reviewed the Directors Cup data that is presented about the ASC, were the ASC to split into 2 conferences, that would add another 25 points to the totals in about 12 team sports, and it would add the next increment of points (~15 points per sport) for roughly half of the sports for the victors of those playoff games involving what is now the "American Southwest Conference Inter-divisional Championships" for the AQ!  Also the ASC does not have championships in M&W Lacrosse, Field Hockey, Rowing, M&W Indoor Track and Field, M&W Swimming and M&W Ice Hockey.  Many of the "D-IV's" accumulate large point totals in the Directors Cups in those sports.  (As I have pointed out before, the Champion in Women's Rowing, which has defeated 42 opponents, gets the same 100 Directors' Cup points as the winner of Women's Basketball which has defeated more than 420 opponents to win the championship.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on December 16, 2007, 10:51:34 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 16, 2007, 09:39:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 16, 2007, 06:14:40 PM
Interesting that the SCAC and NCAC would be divergent, and that the NESCAC and WIAC would be left in D-4, which seems odd.
smed, the SCAC has some schools with sports sponsorship issues, some with voting issues, and I think that the southern schools are facing a different sociological/ cultural emphasis on sports in society.

I guess I was thinking in terms of like institutions, where the SCAC and NCAC are peas in a pods, and far from the WIAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on December 16, 2007, 11:40:30 PM
But the Director's Cup is independent of the NCAA. If one doesn't approve of the Director's Cup scoring, one can always create an XYZ Cup with a different and acceptable scoring system but without the difficulties of changing the NCAA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sac on December 16, 2007, 11:53:48 PM
Something to keep in mind with regards to the Great Lakes area schools is the Great Lakes Colleges Association.

Its comprised of.......
Albion College
Antioch College
Denison University
DePauw University
Earlham College
Hope College
Kalamazoo College
Kenyon College
Oberlin College
Ohio Wesleyan University
Wabash College
The College of Wooster

These colleges make up good chunks of the MIAA and NCAC.  Philosophically I believe they would all move together.  Its not inconceivable that a split could occur within these conferences along the lines of affiliation with this association.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 17, 2007, 12:19:43 AM
Quote from: sac on December 16, 2007, 11:53:48 PM
Something to keep in mind with regards to the Great Lakes area schools is the Great Lakes Colleges Association.

Its comprised of.......
Albion College
Antioch College
Denison University
DePauw University
Earlham College
Hope College
Kalamazoo College
Kenyon College
Oberlin College
Ohio Wesleyan University
Wabash College
The College of Wooster

These colleges make up good junks of the MIAA and NCAC.  Philosophically I believe they would all move together.  Its not inconceivable that a split could occur within these conferences along the lines of affiliation with this association.


Woe unto you if a Calvin poster ever finds THAT typo! ;D  (I suppose a Witt supporter might run with it too, but that's not your problem. ;))
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sac on December 17, 2007, 01:03:05 AM
Actually Mr. Y, Calvin and Wittenberg are not members of the GLCA.

http://www.glca.org/Member%20Colleges/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 17, 2007, 07:19:39 AM
Quote from: frank uible on December 16, 2007, 11:40:30 PM
But the Director's Cup is independent of the NCAA. If one doesn't approve of the Director's Cup scoring, one can always create an XYZ Cup with a different and acceptable scoring system but without the difficulties of changing the NCAA.
;)

One of these days, when I have more time, and don't make any more excuses, I want to multiply the Director's Cup scoring by a "participation coefficient".  The Participation Co-efficient will the the percentage of full NCAA memberships who participate in a particular sport.
:)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on December 17, 2007, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: sac on December 16, 2007, 11:53:48 PM
Something to keep in mind with regards to the Great Lakes area schools is the Great Lakes Colleges Association.

Its comprised of.......
Albion College
Antioch College
Denison University
DePauw University
Earlham College
Hope College
Kalamazoo College
Kenyon College
Oberlin College
Ohio Wesleyan University
Wabash College
The College of Wooster

These colleges make up good chunks of the MIAA and NCAC.  Philosophically I believe they would all move together.  Its not inconceivable that a split could occur within these conferences along the lines of affiliation with this association.


Antioch has no (school-sponsored) intercollegiate sports.

I remain confident that the NCAC will stay or move as a group, Wittenberg included (as well as Allegheny and, probably, Hiram).  However I have heard rumors that, while there seems to be solidarity among the NCAC presidents, there is some amount of opposition among NCAC coaches, and not all of them will go along for the trip to D4.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joepieters on December 17, 2007, 11:53:31 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 16, 2007, 02:36:23 PM
Great find (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3546.msg835869#msg835869) by Li'l Giant concerning the "split" by VP from (CCIW) Augustana and a response by the President of Earlham (NCAC).

+1!  ;)

A must read from insidehighered.com (http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/12/13/barnds)!

Please click on Li'l Giant's post.

I disagree with the article on two points:

First, the preception issue of a change to Div IV: if these conferences are transfering from one division to another en masse (and obviously that is still an open issue), and college X plays the same ten colleges in Div IV as it did in Div III, I would think that that would be more important to a recruit than the fact that the Division is now called Div IV.

Second, the author metions that the recruit whose burning desire is for athletics won't come to a Div IV school.  But it seems to me that a student who is looking at Div III schools does not have athletics as his or her sole burning desire in the first place, so to say that that recruit which has athletics as his sole desire won't look at a Div IV schools is a non issue since he or she was not going to look at those Div III or Div IV schools in the first place.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on December 17, 2007, 01:22:53 PM
"Interesting that the SCAC and NCAC would be divergent, and that the NESCAC and WIAC would be left in D-4, which seems odd."


My view is i would be shocked if the scac doesn't follow the ncac + other like minded school's to d4, regardless of the notion that it might be a slot below on the athletic side. What i think is happening is the fancy academic school's want to play in their own spot, ie this whole split thing has more to do with the academic birds of a feather going together. I also suspect the NAIA is in big trouble,  add those school's to the d3 pool and it brings in a very diverse set of school's and it gets too crowded for some.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 17, 2007, 04:27:32 PM
Quote from: cush on December 17, 2007, 01:22:53 PM
"Interesting that the SCAC and NCAC would be divergent, and that the NESCAC and WIAC would be left in D-4, which seems odd."


My view is i would be shocked if the scac doesn't follow the ncac + other like minded school's to d4, regardless of the notion that it might be a slot below on the athletic side. What i think is happening is the fancy academic school's want to play in their own spot, ie this whole split thing has more to do with the academic birds of a feather going together. I also suspect the NAIA is in big trouble,  add those school's to the d3 pool and it brings in a very diverse set of school's and it gets too crowded for some.
Cush, the background document that I cite in post # 1084 does not have the SCAC  moving to the new grouping under any of the more restrictive criteria.

Please review those pages of the presentation.  :)

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on December 17, 2007, 05:43:12 PM
Ralph -

However, wouldn't it make sense that some of the SCAC would want to move. I can't imagine DePauw not moving to fit with Wabash, and other schools fit the NESCAC / NCAC model as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on December 17, 2007, 06:01:05 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 17, 2007, 05:43:12 PM
Ralph -

However, wouldn't it make sense that some of the SCAC would want to move. I can't imagine DePauw not moving to fit with Wabash, and other schools fit the NESCAC / NCAC model as well.

There are cases where traditional rivalries have survived the schools being in different organizations or divisions.  Centre/Berea and Wittenberg/Cedarville come to mind.  However, I think you're right about DPU, whose ties to Wabash seem to be at least as strong as those to the SCAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 17, 2007, 06:07:58 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 17, 2007, 05:43:12 PM
Ralph -

However, wouldn't it make sense that some of the SCAC would want to move. I can't imagine DePauw not moving to fit with Wabash, and other schools fit the NESCAC / NCAC model as well.
smed, this may be some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth as this proposal rips some conferences apart.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 17, 2007, 06:21:22 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 17, 2007, 05:43:12 PM
Ralph -

However, wouldn't it make sense that some of the SCAC would want to move. I can't imagine DePauw not moving to fit with Wabash, and other schools fit the NESCAC / NCAC model as well.
smed, this may be some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth as this proposal rips some conferences apart.

There have been some of the more "restrictive" members who frown upon D-1 Lacrosse at JHU (Centennial) , or D-1 Ice Hockey and D-1 women's soccer at Colorado College (SCAC).  Is that a deal-breaker in the new grouping?

The Austin College (SCAC) web site is down so I cannot count sports, but they only had 11 back in the ASC.

Oglethorpe (SCAC) needs to add two sports, or is their 784-student enrollment what the guidelines allow as an exception to the policy?

I guess these questions are the better examples of the machinations and negotiations that will be employed by those schools wanting this legislation going thru, and the adoption of the guidelines that will make sure that their friends will qualify to make the invitation list.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on December 17, 2007, 06:24:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 17, 2007, 06:21:22 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 17, 2007, 05:43:12 PM
Ralph -

However, wouldn't it make sense that some of the SCAC would want to move. I can't imagine DePauw not moving to fit with Wabash, and other schools fit the NESCAC / NCAC model as well.
smed, this may be some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth as this proposal rips some conferences apart.

There have been some of the more "restrictive" members who frown upon D-1 Lacrosse at JHU (Centennial) , or D-1 Ice Hockey and D-1 women's soccer at Colorado College (SCAC).  Is that a deal-breaker in the new grouping?

The Austin College (SCAC) web site is down so I cannot count sports, but they only had 11 back in the ASC.

Oglethorpe (SCAC) needs to add two sports, or is their 784-student enrollment what the guidelines allow as an exception to the policy?

Thus, the future of D3 is now pretty much up in the air (is there something else at play here?). Those in the know kindly chime in here.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 17, 2007, 06:29:13 PM
Yes, it certainly is!

I strongly encourage fans to view the power point presentation and watch the video clips (about 40 minutes total running time) to comprehend what this means.

I understand the problem.  D-III is getting "too" big to have a 64-team tourney at the 1:6.5 playoff ratio.  The 3.18% share of the NCAA pie seems unlikely to get bigger, and the 11-year television contract for sports other than football is coming up re-negotiation in the foreseeable future.

Just as I can see the NCAC pushing for more restrictive limits in D-IV, I can imagine some "more lenient" legislation from the other side hitting D-III.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on December 17, 2007, 07:04:07 PM
I think DIV III will still be around, but in a different format. Some of the Conferennces will change and some of the schools.

Years ago when schools dropped out of DIV I and went to I-AA people thought that the I-AA would never get going. Well they just had a championship and some of the former members are now DIV I schools.

This can only make DIV III stronger and competition stronger. It is going to make waves and maybe stop long running rivalries. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes down.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 17, 2007, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on December 17, 2007, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: sac on December 16, 2007, 11:53:48 PM
Something to keep in mind with regards to the Great Lakes area schools is the Great Lakes Colleges Association.

Its comprised of.......
Albion College
Antioch College
Denison University
DePauw University
Earlham College
Hope College
Kalamazoo College
Kenyon College
Oberlin College
Ohio Wesleyan University
Wabash College
The College of Wooster

These colleges make up good chunks of the MIAA and NCAC.  Philosophically I believe they would all move together.  Its not inconceivable that a split could occur within these conferences along the lines of affiliation with this association.


Antioch has no (school-sponsored) intercollegiate sports.

A shame, too, as I would greatly enjoy cheering for the Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch College.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on December 17, 2007, 08:54:16 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 17, 2007, 08:22:02 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on December 17, 2007, 11:22:54 AM

Antioch has no (school-sponsored) intercollegiate sports.

A shame, too, as I would greatly enjoy cheering for the Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch College.

Yeah; when they hit a shot from behind the arc, they get five.
Three, sire!
Three!
:D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on December 18, 2007, 08:04:58 AM
David,

The championships ratio is only one component here.  It is a valid concern as to how the division structures itself, but the widening gaps in philosophies is becoming more apparent all the time.  That, in the end, is what will really drive this thing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on December 18, 2007, 08:05:41 AM
If you've been following the news, a Holy Hand Grenade as ripped apart Antioch's financials.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on December 18, 2007, 09:09:09 AM
If you can get a hold of the December 17 NCAA News (the last hard copy issue to be printed by the way) the Centerpiece section has a good summary of the association-wide nature of the proposed split.

Merry Christmas to all!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on December 18, 2007, 09:56:38 AM
Quote from: joehakes on December 18, 2007, 09:09:09 AM
If you can get a hold of the December 17 NCAA News (the last hard copy issue to be printed by the way) the Centerpiece section has a good summary of the association-wide nature of the proposed split.

Merry Christmas to all!

The Centerpiece section is online here (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=46).

A very nice summary piece as to what is being floated around right now.  Nothing groundbreaking or with new news, but it basically puts on the table succinctly as to what will be discussed.  If you are looking to get up to speed quickly, this is a nice read.

Quote from: David Collinge on December 17, 2007, 08:54:16 PM
Yeah; when they hit a shot from behind the arc, they get five.
Three, sire!
Three!
:D

+1k for the good insert there.  Great line!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on December 18, 2007, 11:47:47 AM
I thought that attachment b, philosophical basis for new membership is the key. Just goes back to my rational that school's like rhodes, south, etc that are in the scac are gonna want to join with the kenyon's of the world, ie hook up with the ncac  and such in a new divison since their main selling point is academics to attract students. These school's like to distinguish their academic standing and a separation does that + they are awful expensive, so that type of branding  doesn't hurt. Yet, geography is a problem for scac school's.  Also, attachement D, Q #6  suggest that d3 is gonna add up to 60 members, i'll assume from NAIA, which would bring it up to 480 by 2020 and that probably leaves the naia at what 200 or so? Really, the naia should fold itself into the ncaa organization...in any event i can see the need for a new division.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 18, 2007, 02:46:08 PM
We must be overloading the server, because I am unable to review the "Centerpiece" article.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on December 18, 2007, 02:56:49 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 18, 2007, 02:46:08 PM
We must be overloading the server, because I am unable to review the "Centerpiece" article.

Here is a new link to it.  (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kWhCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L0lDU0lKQ1RPN29na21BISEvb0VvUUFBSVFnakZJQUFRaENFSVFqR0VBLzRKRmlDbzBlaDFpY29uUVZHaGQtc0lRIS83XzBfNTJILzExNDg0?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_0_52H_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Topics/&pagedesign=Centerpiece+Front+Page) They seem to have updated the site throughout the day.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 18, 2007, 08:14:58 PM
Quote from: cush on December 18, 2007, 11:47:47 AMAlso, attachement D, Q #6  suggest that d3 is gonna add up to 60 members, i'll assume from NAIA, which would bring it up to 480 by 2020 and that probably leaves the naia at what 200 or so? Really, the naia should fold itself into the ncaa organization

The problem is that the NAIA fills a necessary niche for schools that do not wish to, or are unable to, field teams in a sufficient number of sports to qualify for D2 or D3 membership.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 18, 2007, 08:31:02 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 18, 2007, 08:14:58 PM
Quote from: cush on December 18, 2007, 11:47:47 AMAlso, attachement D, Q #6  suggest that d3 is gonna add up to 60 members, i'll assume from NAIA, which would bring it up to 480 by 2020 and that probably leaves the naia at what 200 or so? Really, the naia should fold itself into the ncaa organization

The problem is that the NAIA fills a necessary niche for schools that do not wish to, or are unable to, field teams in a sufficient number of sports to qualify for D2 or D3 membership.

The NAIA is also more lenient in how aid is awarded and will allow athletes to hold jobs while on scholarship.  When Paul Smiths was going from a JC to 4 year school, they explored both and the reason Greg cited above and the scholarship/financial aid are why they went NAIA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on December 18, 2007, 11:03:32 PM
Interesting blurb in tomorrow's Minneapolis StarTribune:

Growing Division III might seek Division IV (http://www.startribune.com/sports/12614741.html)

There are different philosophies and different program sizes," [MIAC Commissioner Dan] McKane said. "There is a difference of opinion on rules like redshirting. As a conference, the MIAC presidents and athletic directors are happy with Division III as it is."

Keep in mind that the MIAC is slated to be a D-IV prospective conference.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on December 18, 2007, 11:39:16 PM
So could D-3 morph into something with limited scholarships and redshirting, and D-4 be what D-3 is now??
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on December 18, 2007, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 18, 2007, 11:39:16 PM
So could D-3 morph into something with limited scholarships and redshirting, and D-4 be what D-3 is now??

In theory, I suppose. 

But perhaps D-2 should further drop its scholarship limits and encourage some of the D-3s to move there-- and there could stay only 3 divisions.  However, I fear that D-2 won't do that at all, as there was massive uproar the last time that was brought up there.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 19, 2007, 03:18:00 AM
+1 Johnnie!

Another great find, to go with your last one, the MIAC letter that you posted earlier this year (that I cannot seem to find, that stated that the MIAC was happy with the way things were.)

I still come back to the analogy of the party...

What if the NCAC gave a party and nobody, or not all of the right people, came?

The MIAC is a very influential conference!

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on December 19, 2007, 09:56:26 AM
Do I properly sense that some have a hint of punitive attitude in this matter?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on December 19, 2007, 11:04:33 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 19, 2007, 03:18:00 AM
The MIAC is a very influential conference!

I don't know about influential, but it is very much in a critical role, as (1.) most of its members were 1973 D-III originals; (2.) their sizes and philosophies are similar to the D-IV proponents (as opposed to the state-school/big enrollment WIAC next door); (3.) its members are well known for their academic programs (Carleton and Macalester are top notch; St. Thomas is approaching Marquette/Creighton status; SJU/STO/GAC/BU/CORD have very strong alumni bases); and (4.) its members have done pretty well athletically on the national stage (SJU/BU/Cord football; UST hockey/baseball/softball; Augsburg wrestling; GAC basketball, to name a few).   This provides a lot of diversity that other conferences that can relate to some or all of these characteristics.

So it seems like the MIAC is the swing vote more than an influential one. 

I find the statement that "we like D-III as it sits today" interesting.  Does that insinuate that the MIAC would only look at D-IV if D-III rescinded its reform movement?  Would it be alone in doing so then?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 28, 2007, 09:28:15 PM
The Convention is only 2 weeks away now.

The link that Johnnie Esq provided has some interesting points.  I have quoted the features that the press release suggests that might occur.  Let's look at the practical aspects of the "code words".

QuoteDivision III

• No athletics aid
• Current sport-sponsorship requirements
• Student body recruiting base
• Current or less restriction on athletics activities
• Financial commitment to support institution's purpose for athletics (for example, programs that attract students or emphasize particular sports)
• Institutionally integrated programs that serve student body (consistent with current philosophy statement)



New Division
• No athletics aid  Ditto
• Increased sport-sponsorship requirements
• Student body recruiting base  Ditto
• Increased restriction on athletics activities
• Financial commitment to support institution's purpose for athletics (for example, support broad range of sports)  Is this a code-word for de-emphasizing D-III athletics as we know it?  This almost has "Swarthmorian" overtones.  Here are the D3football.com archives on Swarthmore's decision to discontinue football after 120 seasons:  Here (http://www.d3football.com/notables/swat.html),  here (http://www.d3football.com/news.php?item=408), and here. (http://www.d3football.com/notables/alvanos.html)
• Institutionally integrated programs that serve student body (emphasizing proposed distinguishing characteristics listed below)



A new division or subdivision would distinguish itself by...
• Encouraging student-athletes to pursue a more broad-based educational experience and participate in a full range of available co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. Athletics activities would be more limited in scope and duration.  (I have spoken with three former student-athletes about the way that they achieved their goals in what they wanted to do in college.  They could not imagine shortening the season by 1-2 weeks and the non-traditional season having an impact their decision to pledge a fraternity or run for student- government or other extra-curricular activities.)

• Holding institutions more accountable to philosophical priorities, through reporting or review processes in areas including financial aid, academic performance, special admissions, diversity, gender equity and sport equity. (How much more accountability do the schools want over the present accountability systems?  Please give us substantive examples.)

• Empowering presidents with greater authority and responsibility for athletics programs, in consultation with appropriate campus constituencies, to ensure full integration of the athletics program with the institution's educational mission.  (Can you imagine a president under the current system not having the degree of authority to control this?  Can one show significant  examples where the athletics program has not been integrated into the school's education mission?  If there is an example, why is that not a case of a poorly-functioning college president and administration?  What current NCAA processes need to be changed in D-III to correct those deficiencies?)


A new division or subdivision could...

• Reduce contest maximums and the scope and length of playing and practice seasons to allow student-athletes greater flexibility to participate in a full range of co-curricular/extracurricular experiences.  (A smaller division could cut 1 week off the football season, especially for a 16 team playoff, but we have not seen any musings of cutting the post-season in other sports such as women's soccer or hoops to less than a 3-week playoff.)

• Establish a more limited recruiting process through such methods as recruiting calendars and limitations on in-person and electronic contact.
(This is a real distinguishing feature.)

• Establish a regular review of academic performance comparing student-athletes to the general student body.  (Isn't this being done in many schools or conferences already?  I know that the NCAA is conducting these efforts across all divisions.)

• Establish a regular review of the academic profile of entering student-athletes as compared to the general student body.  (Isn't this already being done?  What would be new or different?  Would it only be more stringent?)

• Establish authority for the Presidents Council and/or Chancellors and Presidents Advisory Group to identify key proposals adopted or defeated by the membership and forward them directly to all presidents for reconsideration.  (IMHO, this is just a code-word for those presidents who have chafed at losing on votes at the convention by the full division.  What is current D-III Presidents' Council doing now?)

A new subdivision...

• Current or reduced sport-sponsorship requirement (Less sponsorship?  Like the NAIA?)

• Common or separate championships (We have already seen concern about needing to hold joint championships in the "minor" sports.)

• Current or less restriction of student-athlete activities  (What does this mean?)

• Current level of institutional accountability

• Current level of presidential involvement

• No athletics-based aid  (Ditto)

• Shared philosophy statement (Ditto)

• Shared governance structure  (Ditto)

OR:

• Increased sport-sponsorship requirement
• Common or separate championships
• Increased restriction of student-athlete activities
• Increased level of institutional accountability
• Increased level of presidential involvement
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on December 28, 2007, 11:03:42 PM
What would prevent or otherwise interfere with a college remaining in DIII but taking any of the actions, or imposing on itself any of the restrictions, particular to the new division?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 28, 2007, 11:29:45 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 28, 2007, 11:03:42 PM
What would prevent or otherwise interfere with a college remaining in DIII but taking any of the actions, or imposing on itself any of the restrictions, particular to the new division?
Good evening, Frank!  Those are my questions as well.  :)

On a conference by conference basis, D-III has allowed the individual conferences to maintain their autonomy.  For all of the quibbling that we do on these boards about NESCAC football, that conference has re-stated its  commitment to controlling the process and the nature of their intercollegiate athletic participation.

We see that commitment manifested in season length in the Midwest Conference, restrictions in recruiting in the OAC and the SCIAC, etc., and the efforts to secure the AQ in sponsored sports such as football and numerous other sports by multiple conferences.  The formation of new conferences has shown that Presidents are trying to enhance the student-athlete experience amongst peer institutions, e.g., the Landmark Conference, the North Eastern Athletic Conference, the New England Collegiate Conference.  (Doesn't that cover the diverse nature of D-III?  And yet it is working.)

I just want the Presidents to cut the "bovine excrement" about how they are going to be different.

If the divisions will work better with 150 schools in a more restrictive division, then let's make that the nature of the efforts in the split.  I really wonder if the most restrictive advocates can find 150 schools to go along with their vision of intercollegiate athletics.  I have tried to provide historical examples of how athletics was de-emphasized at Swarthmore.  Is this really what the change in institutional emphasis is about?

If we are maintaining the same 1:6.5 playoff access ratio that is becoming impossible with the increasing numbers of D-III schools, then good.  Let's make this work.  In the "smaller" sports, it may be prudent to have concurrent championships declared at the same venue.  However, mixing a D-III and a D-IV field is not the same thing.  The D-IV's have one set of governing principles, D-III another, if we comprehend what the "D-IV's" are proposing in the background documents.

I want to thank for co-contributors to this discussion.  I hope that similar discussions are occurring at the highest levels, because none of us want to hurt something that we believe is the finest example of amateur athletics among the most deserving participants, the student-athletes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 30, 2007, 12:33:38 AM
+K to Ralph for "Bovine Excrement"  I don't think I have ever heard BS so eloquently stated.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 30, 2007, 05:23:51 PM
Well, a person whom I respect greatly thinks that "taurine" is more precise than "bovine".

I know that "taurine excrement" is highly profane for my usual postings, but there is much stuff being shoveled in the press releases.

Real differences that I can imagine that might be used to distinguish D-III and D-IV are:

--Not honoring a "red-shirt" year by a student athlete who has "moved up" from a D-II or D-I school.

--Variations in recruiting guidelines including those new guidelines involving electronic communication that will be voted at the January convention.

--Prohibiting schools from sponsoring D-1 teams.  The problem with this is that there are some desirable schools whom this affects, e.g., Johns Hopkins (Lacrosse) Colorado College (Men's Ice Hockey, Women's Soccer), Union, RPI, St Lawrence (Men's and Women's Ice Hockey).

--"Minimum number of sports" will require some schools to add programs, but that is probably the easiest change to implement.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 30, 2007, 06:28:39 PM
I copied this article for my archives from the Times-Free Press in summer 2007.  Here is an insight into the impact that it might have on the SCAC, one of the putative conferences that has peers in "D-IV".

QuoteDivision III dissension
Story Subhead
--
Sunday, June 10, 2007

By Darren Epps
Staff Writer

SEWANEE, Tenn. -- Demanding academic standards and an expansive selection of sports programs make the University of the South an ideal NCAA Division III institution, a model of genuine amateur athletics.

But the model is becoming blurred by universities with different interpretations of the Division III mission statement, and the school also known as Sewanee is watching membership and dissension swell.

The fractured membership could result in Sewanee and other traditional schools competing in a new division starting in 2009, possibly under the designation of Division IV or even Division V. Numerous presidents, athletic directors and administrators interviewed said a plan to split Division III, which does not allow athletic scholarships, is imminent when the group meets at January's convention in Nashville.

It's a case of multiplication forcing more dividing.

"It may go to two subdivisions or a fourth division, or potentially even both," NCAA president Myles Brand said. "I think what's happened is that Division III has gotten too big, and there's some philosophical differences within the division that we might do better at treating them separately."

The crux of Division III's civil war is indeed the rising number of universities, now at 450 counting the provisional schools. The influx of schools means a sweeping range of standards concerning admissions, financial aid and the vigor in which Division III programs are pursuing national championships.

Traditional schools like Sewanee want to align with academic peers. Other programs will pursue the athletic spotlight. And even more schools are resistant to change, unwilling to relinquish 80-year-old rivalries or accept a perceived demotion to a potential Division IV.

A poor recruiting season doesn't just affect wins and losses for some Division III schools. At Sewanee, more than 400 students participate in athletics, making up almost one-fourth of the school's enrollment. If student-athletes don't like the stigma of Division IV, the number of admissions at Sewanee -- and its reputation in the rankings of elite colleges -- could drop.

"But I don't believe anybody will think of it as a demotion," said Sewanee vice chancellor and president Dr. Joel Cunningham, who graduated summa cum laude from the University of Chattanooga in 1965. "It would actually join us with people more consistently focused with our values. That's not up or down; it's more of a tightly focused gathering."

Several coaches said they disagreed, and commissioner Steve Argo of Sewanee's league -- the Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference -- admitted a change to Division IV would be a "hard sell" in recruiting.

"From a coach's perspective, it's already hard enough to put that 'three' out there," Argo said, referring to Division III. "It's like you're third-best."

But presidents and coaches can agree that Division III's diversity prompts the need for change. The profile of the less traditional, more athletic-minded school includes offering fewer sports to direct more money into their programs, making more financial aid available and accepting athletes with heightened academic risks. Many are former NAIA programs.

"I don't want to sound elite," said Al Van Wie, the former Division III chief who believes the alliance needs to split, "but I really question how true some of these schools' commitments are to Division III principles."

And then there's Sewanee, with a tuition of $36,910, counting room and board, and a broad-based athletic program. The mountain stone architecture on this sprawling, 10,000-acre campus on the Cumberland Plateau houses 24 sports -- more than any other SCAC school -- at the cost of $3.4 million per year to the athletic department.

But the South's oldest football field isn't home to any winning seasons in the last six years, and the Sewanee women's tennis team recently claimed the school's first conference title in any sport since 2004.

"If you go to the convention, athletic directors are all over the board with what they do in terms of sponsoring sports and how they recruit and conduct nontraditional practice," Sewanee athletic director Mark Webb said. "Is it frustrating? You hear coaches talk about different admissions standards or selectivity or financial-aid policies.

"An athlete might say, 'Why should we come to your school when School B is offering $10,000 more dollars?' For whatever reasons, it's certainly not equal footing or a level playing field. But we have to deal with who we are and control what we can do at Sewanee."

In many instances, Sewanee's athletes are competing against players who couldn't get into their school, who wouldn't receive enough financial aid, who practice longer or who were recruited more heavily. Unlike in Division I, no NCAA clearinghouse exists for Division III. Colleges determine who's admitted and how much financial aid they receive.

An athlete who couldn't get into Mississippi State, for instance, could attend a Division III school with lax admission requirements. But not Sewanee.

"I don't want to come off sounding entitled," said new Tigers football coach Robert Black, a former Sewanee athlete, "but originally, NCAA Division III was about a small-college experience that had the kids' academic welfare at the front. I don't know necessarily if that's the case across the board now."

But who should move to the new division? The less traditional schools say they aren't forcing anyone to change and, therefore, shouldn't be the ones moving to Division IV. The traditional Division III schools, such as Sewanee, say they were there first when the NCAA created divisions in 1973.

"It's the other schools that should be in the other division," Black said. "I think we should stay where we are. We founded it. We were small-college football. The other ones can create their own division. Or just put academic requirements on it. If I were part of the debate, I would suggest a clearinghouse for Division III."

Administrators in Division III offered varying ideas, including the separation of divisions by the size of the school. But a large, elite school such as New York University would certainly object. Another idea is dividing the schools by the number of sports they offer. But there are numerous academic elites who offer fewer sports because of financial constraints.

And then there's the backlash against the Division IV moniker. Brand said one option is using Division III-A and Division III-AA. Or, following the lead of the former Division I-A and I-AA, the alliance can stray from numerical attachments and assign names such as National Division and American Division.

Yes, a lot has changed since Alex Guerry Sr. led the effort for Sewanee to resign from the Southeastern Conference in 1940 and commit to small-college athletics.

"Everybody is going to take a step back, look at each other and decide, 'Who do you want to be aligned with?' " Argo said. "It could be awkward."

E-mail Darren Epps at depps@timesfreepress.com
I do disagree with one statement, based on information from the background documents.  The more "academic prestigious" schools offer more sports not less than the "average in D-III".

Let me raise one other point about the hypothetical student who couldn't get into Mississippi State.

The only D-III schools that are anywhere near Mississippi State are Millsaps, Mississippi College, Louisiana College, Huntingdon and LaGrange.  I seriously doubt that there are many quality student-athletes who fit this profile.  I can imagine a student-athlete with dysfunctional learning processes that might benefit from a structured program to help him/her with the curriculum (and please the US Dept of Education academic "edu-crats" at the same time) who might strive diligently to earn a degree at some D-III.  That student is either responding to the brilliant teaching modalities as diagnosed, prescribed and developed for that student (which is a "core strength" at the institution) and is moving toward his/her degree, or the kid has "busted out" within a semester.

Besides, it is not "politically correct" to value one student over another student.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ILive4This on December 31, 2007, 10:34:48 AM
I had the opportunity to be briefed on this topic at the our League's SAAC conference this summer. I along with my fellow student athletes had mixed opinions on the matter, not that some liked and some did not, but that all liked pieces but did not like other parts of the issue.

First we were from a conference that would certainly stay in the higher of the two divisions if their is a schism of some kind. We liked the criteria that would be used for a split. i.e size, but also sports sponsorship and school philosophy. There is also a clear need as Div III is bursting at the seems, due to the NAIA getting closer and closer to being defunct, and most of these schools choosing D III rather than what I feel would be the more obvious D III.

The numbers were staggering, right now I believe 1/7.5 schools gets into the playoffs for basketball, this number in the next 10 years would go up to 1/8.5 and would not level off their (this number may be a bit off as the conference was in July but I think it is close). New conferences would be created, with new automatic bids. The tournament likely would not expand because of MONEY$$$$ (I'll get to that later), and length of season. This means that less Pool C bids would be awarded, and teams from the UAA, WIAC etc. with multiple top 25,25 or even top 10 teams would not make it into the tournament (scary thought).

However, the reason that was presented to us at first was not what I just mentioned, it was money. The argument was that currently D III gets 1.5%?? of the overall NCAA budget. My argument back was, if the division was to split, the budget will not grow, that same 1.5% or otherwise small amount of money will be split among the two divisions as it would if it stayed as a whole.

Summary, something needs to be done, but perhaps the bigger issue is money, and rules/structure. If we are worried about tournament expansion, perhaps less conferences get automatic bids. Maybe make the auto bids, on a regional basis like in Cross Country. If we are worried about money, well I am not sure what to do, because How many sponsors want to get little to no advertising for their dollars. Finally, Good in Thought, but needs to be worked out better before it actually gets passed.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on December 31, 2007, 11:52:05 AM
Why do we need more (rather than fewer) rules about what a NCAA member college must or can't do? So that money can be shifted from one set of member colleges to another? What folly!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ILive4This on December 31, 2007, 04:22:29 PM
As i contemplate this topic more and more I view the eventual fall out of the NAIA as a buyout of the NAIA by the NCAA. I look at the possibility of 4 divisions this way. Div 1 and 2 to me are already the same concept with just one difference. The schools give out scholarships, go through the clearinghouse, the main difference usually comes from philosophy of the school, which I think corresponds to academics and number of athletic teams supported. If I am not mistaken Harvard which is usually 1 or 2 in the academic rankings sponsors more sports than any other university in the country.

Now we see a possible D 3 and 4, both will not have scholarships for athletics. so there must be a split, and this will come from again Philosophy which can in many cases spill over to/from, size of school, academic and athletic reputation. The interesting thing is, that the split will not be done on a school by school basis but rather a conference basis, or so that is how I have understood it. The higher academic schools, larger schools which are not always the same, but usually both have more sports sponsored will be brought to the bigger division. This means UAA, NESCAC, WIAC etc. while smaller school conferences, such as CCC, MASCAC etc will more than likely go to the smaller of the divisions. This also has to do with money in many cases, schools like NYU and Williams with budgets at 3 million or larger (NYU with no football team has a 2.9 M budget). will carry schools like Case Western with smaller budgets (1.4M with a football team).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 31, 2007, 04:39:55 PM
I don't think the NAIA schools will all join the NCAA, many do not want to deal with the NCAA.  My nephew coaches at an NAIA school and they want nothing to do with the NCAA.  The NCAA is too restrictive with many of their scholarship rules for athletes.  The NAIA is less restrictive on how the money can be used and on allowing scholarship athletes to work part time jobs.  The NAIA may have to restructure but I don't think it will disappear completely.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on December 31, 2007, 04:48:20 PM
Why should one college want to "carry" another athletically?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ILive4This on December 31, 2007, 05:29:51 PM
To comment, on the last two posts, first, the NAIA, is loosing schools and they are coming to the NCAA, some to D2 and others are attempting to come to D3, even though it has for the time being closed its doors. So clearly they have no problem coming to the NCAA. (In certain sports NAIA schools must pay their own way to national championships, if they can not afford to get to the location, they do NOT compete).

Next the school is not really carrying the other in a total sense, conferences are set so that in one way or another each school is pulling its weight. I will give for example the UAA since I know it the best.

Teams = NYU, Rochester, Wash U, Emory, Chicago, Case Western Reserve, Brandeis and Carnegie Mellon.

Academically, all are top notch schools but Wash U and Chicago are the cream of the Crop.
Athletically in terms of National Titles, Wash U and Emory are the leaders
Brandeis offers more sports in League competition then the other seven
NYU is by far the largest, and also spends the most on Athletics.
The others fit in nicely and fall around the average in the categories listed above

Under certain criteria for the new division, some of the schools might not get in because of their size, or other characteristics, but because of the league as a whole and the Philosophy they will all move to D3.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on December 31, 2007, 05:52:30 PM
The NAIA has been losing members, and because of the migration of former NAIA members to the NCAA we're now with a very large Division III, and a very large Division I, with a smaller division in the middle. I feel that many of the schools who are D-1 should actually be D-2 but still many schools are feeling the D-3 model is the way to go. Perhaps if the NAIA were to reform a bit and add a non-scholarship division, that would help thin out the ranks, perhaps?

Not to say that the ranks really need thinning, but I bet that would help the perception.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on December 31, 2007, 06:09:28 PM
Seems to me that this board is getting the most attention so


HAPPY NEW YEAR to one and all  
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on December 31, 2007, 06:27:32 PM
I have not really gotten into discussion with some of the college people I call on, because there on break and Vacation, but I know that in the past some of the colleges really are starting to down play sports. They want to stress academics and "partner institutions" for futher education.  Some of them felt that the cost of running a large athletic program took away from the academic standards to attract the top students.

Plus with some of schools will not allow a donation to go to a sports program. It is for the College to decide the best use for the funds.

It will be worth watching the up coming meetings and reading what they provide for us to read.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on December 31, 2007, 06:28:34 PM
To all a safe and happy New Year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 31, 2007, 08:11:40 PM
Let me use McMurry, my alma mater, as a case study. 

The previous president, Dr Robert Shimp, was a football player at Thiel in the 1960's.  He came to McMurry in the early 1990's and helped lead the Texas Intercollegiate Athletic Association, a NAIA-2 conference founded by Trinity TX, Austin College, Sul Ross State, Tarleton State and McMurry in 1976, to Division III as the 8-team ASC.  (The ASC has grown to a 15-team conference.  Austin College left to the SCAC in 2006.  University of Dallas went independent in 2001.)

Dr Shimp saw the niche of student-athletes who wanted to compete in an organized level of competition in college.  He saw that the NCAA Division III had more to offer than the NAIA, and began a new emphasis on intercollegiate athletics on the campus, under the D-III model.  I think that the school offered 9 sports when he came. (The sports were FB, VB, MBB, WBB, M & W Tennis, and Men's Golf.  Most years the school would field Men's and Women's T&F.  I am not sure when Swimming, Men's and Women's, came online.)  The school now offers 19 sports, 10 men and 9 women, for the student body of 1400, (50/50 gender ratio).

A large number of students come because of athletics, but the key to the success of the school is integrating student-athletes into college.  When the students realize that their talents are not good enough to get the playing time they wish, or they "out-grow" the sport or they discover other interests, the school has found programs that integrate the student-athletes into campus life in other areas.  Many of these students were multi-talented in their high schools, but now are exploring those (non-athletic) interests more completely.  Isn't that what I highlighted as one of the buzz-words in the new D-IV goals?

In the most recent institutional self-study, the current president, Dr John Russell,   populated the Athletics study committee with some of the most respected faculty members.  In the study of athletics programs offered, one key financial finding was that all 19 sports contributed to the financial health of the institution, not the other way around!  That carried great weight with the faculty and allowed a new light to be cast upon the role of the student-athlete and the university.  Athletics was a plus and not a financial drain.  What's more, it was the relationships built on the campus that kept student-athletes in school, when they no longer competed inter-collegiately (retention = continued enrollment = financial well being of the institution).  This is particularly important for a school like McMurry, where we have a student body that represents the demographic breakdown of the state, and have a good number of first-generation college students.

In some ways, McMurry is just like Sewanee, which says that it has 400 student-athletes, one-quarter of the student body.   Student-athletes have decided that they want to participate in inter-collegiate athletics, and Sewanee's student-athletes could have gone anywhere they wanted.  Birmingham-Southern was NAIA in the last decade and went to D-1.  Its current president saw that the D-III model would allow it to use its $120 Million endowment to improve the scholarship offerings of the university to the student body in general, instead of as "athletic scholarships".  He plans to grow the enrollment by 30% using the D-III model and adding sports.

There are two other dynamics that are now present that were not when the current group of senior college administration was in college, pre-Title IX/early 1970's.

--Before Frank Shorter won the 1972 Olympic marathon, almost nobody jogged.  Now, campus activity centers/ workout facilities are a core of the college experience, and expensive workout equipment and facilities are included in Capital Expansions of Campus Facilities.

--If women's athletic programs have the net effect of doubling the number of "athletes" on the campus, then that changes some of the demographical relationships.  Swarthmore worried about "17% athletes" on its campus as having too great of a prevalence.  Ostensibly, their solution was to cut three sports, football, men's wrestling and women's badminton.   A college now has twice the percentage of athletes that it did in 1970, and half of them are women, who had few inter-collegiate options before Title IX.  Those student-athletes view life differently from their mothers.

As colleges try to survive by maintaining enrollment, (as opposed to a Harvard (http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid86195573/bclid212338097/bctid1352499661) with its $35 billion endowment that could do without any undergrads quite nicely), Division III will continue to attract student-athletes whose life choices (athletics) are valued by the institution.  I think that Division III will do well.  After a decade, I wonder if a D-IV that has de-emphasized athletics (or given a "new emphasis" as some have said) will be fairing as well, or will it have fallen from the current D-III pinnacle.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ILive4This on January 01, 2008, 12:46:15 PM
Old ends, any University President will tell you when a donation is made, even to the endowment of his/her institution, rarely is in not tied to something specific, a chair of a department, a building, athletic facility etc. A president/chancellor should never turn down funds that are ear marked for athletics, because that is simply crippling his/her school.

Also as it has been said many times, look at the top athletic schools in division 1 and 3, and for the most part they are top notch academic schools as well.

Div 1 Directors cup Top 5, with (US News Academic rankings)
1. Stanford (4)
2.UCLA (25t)
3. UNC (28)
4. Michigan (25t)
5. USC (27)

Div 3 - Univ = National University List, Lib = Liberal Arts List
1. Williams (1 Lib)
2. Middlebury (5t Lib)
3. SUNY Cortland (70 - masters north list)
4. Amherst (2 Lib)
5. Wash U (12 Univ)

With the exception of one, with great athletics comes great academics, so... there you have it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on January 01, 2008, 01:37:51 PM
I did not say that they turn them down, only they try to encourage them to not go to any one specific fund.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on January 02, 2008, 05:40:19 PM
While in southern California last week with Illinois Wesleyan, I happened to run into the head basketball coach at Mid-America Nazarene.  I had on IWU gear...he had on his gear...we said hello and started talking hoops.  We had a nice conversation about his team (currently #1 in NAIA II) and then general NCAA Division III and NAIA issues.  I brought up the topic of the Division III membership split issues.

He said that the NAIA and NCAA are "at the table together" on this entire issue and that the objective is to find a solution for "small college" overall.  Just today I heard the same thing from another person with very strong NAIA ties -- that the two parties are working together.  They both seemed to imply that the goal is for everyone to eventually be NCAA, but there are sticking points to work through (scholarships being the biggie).

I can't confirm any of this and certainly don't know any details, but having now heard this from two different people in the last week, I found it interesting and worth throwing out there.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on January 02, 2008, 08:21:31 PM
I should be seeing my nephew in a couple of weeks, I will talk to him about it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 02, 2008, 09:44:21 PM
How does DIAA football accomodate athletic scholarship teams and also non-athletic scholarship teams? Perhaps the non-athletic scholarship ones have no overwhelming desire to participate in the playoffs?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on January 02, 2008, 11:26:00 PM
Mr. Ypsi, thanks for the heads-up on this discussion. I have been perusing the last 10-15 pages and have found it very interesting to say the least. I have come to the conclusion that I have no idea what the NCAA is going to do, nor do I think they are sure either.

I saw it mentioned that Division II was questioned about possibly lowering scholarship totals, but that was met with obstinence. I would imagine a logical alternative could be to create a division that perhaps would offer half the scholarships as DII. That would save interested schools money on scholarships, allow them to function under DII rules concerning issues such as redshirting, and allow them to distinguish themselves as a scholarship school. That division would be a very popular alternative in my opinion to current DIII institutions and some NAIA schools. The only problem is it could potentially destroy Division II so cross that off the list.

I had assumed the NCAA would go ahead with some type of reclassificiation for the DIII schools based on a reasonable criteria, but this supposed dialogue between the NCAA and NAIA doesn't really fit that. Anyone have an idea as to when we might see a conclusion to all of this?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 03, 2008, 01:55:49 AM
The D-1AA non-scholarship teams were forced into that classification by the NCAA, otherwise, I'd think Dayton would still be D-3 in football, for example.

Didn't one of the Pioneer League teams go to the playoffs recently?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 03, 2008, 07:23:15 AM
About 3 or 4 years ago Colgate, a member of the non-scholarship footbal Patriot League, advanced to the championship game (vs. Delaware) of DIAA football.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on January 03, 2008, 07:36:27 AM
Hasn't the Patriot League been giving out limited scholarships for a few years now?  Or is that for Basketball?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on January 03, 2008, 07:42:33 AM
Remember that "the NCAA" is the membership.  Since the creation of a new division is an association wide question, there will be discussion with DI and DII regarding the future of DIII.  However, there has been a lot of work, much of it accessible by links from this board, that has been done to be able to present some options and this work has been done by DIII members. 

There will be several forums for information and discussion at the NCAA Convention which starts a week from today.  In February, surveys will go out to various groups, with DIII Presidents being the main target.   These surveys should present various grouping options as well as some philosophical questions about the goals and objectives of athletics at each institution. 

Technically, it is true that the NCAA "doesn't know where it is going," but that is because the membership has not had a chance to look at the options and gauge the various menus of institutional grouping.

Ralph Turner's post on McMurry's history is indeed a great example of the journey taken by many schools over the past 20-25 years when college athletics has undergone tremendous change.  I have been very surprised at some of the NAIA schools that would prefer to go DIII over DII which was the former destination of choice for ex-NAIAers.

There will be much more information to come in the next couple of weeks.  This is a very interesting discussion with some interesting observations.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 03, 2008, 09:48:53 AM
Quote from: Knightstalker on January 03, 2008, 07:36:27 AM
Hasn't the Patriot League been giving out limited scholarships for a few years now?  Or is that for Basketball?

I think that's basketball.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 03, 2008, 12:06:47 PM
I believe that is in basketball.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Spence on January 04, 2008, 10:22:46 AM
The bottom line is people are starting to figure out (not sure why this took so long) that people will pay for the privilege of playing college sports. For schools that are offering scholarships, frequently lowering their admissions standards to do so, and not seeing much if any increase in revenue, they're just throwing money down a hole.

Many NAIA schools have opted for Division III already, and I think more is to come on that. D-II is shrinking as well and isn't far from being an unviably small division.

I think there in the end there will effectively be one scholarship division: Division I. The proposed split of D-III will basically facilitate more D-II and NAIA schools that don't want to go totally Swarthmore on sports to consider non-scholarship options.

Good for schools, bad for convicted felons that want free rides to college.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 04, 2008, 12:35:00 PM
Quote from: Spence on January 04, 2008, 10:22:46 AM
Good for schools, bad for convicted felons that want free rides to college.
It's not just "convicted felons" that want free rides to college.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 04, 2008, 05:41:34 PM
Quote from: Spence on January 04, 2008, 10:22:46 AM
I think there in the end there will effectively be one scholarship division: Division I. The proposed split of D-III will basically facilitate more D-II and NAIA schools that don't want to go totally Swarthmore on sports to consider non-scholarship options.

What you say above may well be on the mark. For the sake of argument, however, I can't envision the D2 venues, say, in Texas taking the D3 non-scholarship path. In the Lone Star State that just might be akin to fessing up that the heroes of the Alamo stood and fought only because the Alamo had no back door ....  :P
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on January 04, 2008, 07:27:02 PM
I am attending the AFCA convention in Anaheim next week.  If I hear anything of interest from the coaches point of view, I will try to post it later next week.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: martin on January 04, 2008, 10:46:55 PM
It seems one of the hangups about a split is who gets the name DIII - since DIV seems like a demotion.  So how about this - split DII.  You could have DII-Scholarship and DII-Non-scholarship.  The DIII schools which want looser rules could move to DII-NS.

DIV could be for NAIA schools which cannot meet most NCAA requirements.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ILive4This on January 04, 2008, 10:53:55 PM
I am not sure its really about tighter vs looser rules... And why not take a demotion, I mean lets be real that is what it is. Just like Amherst Probably would not play Duke, should they play Albertus Magnus....I mean as much as there is parity within the top 30-40 teams in D3 there is a big big difference between the top and the bottom.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 05, 2008, 05:29:23 AM
Would such demotion taking be voluntary or enforced? If enforced, what would be the rules of enforcement?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on January 05, 2008, 07:14:16 AM
Don't assume that people will look at this as a demotion.  For current DIII members, change of division will be an institutional decision, as long as they fit the criteria for that particular division.  The idea of the numbered divisions using new names is being discussed, but I don't think that DIII folks have looked at themselves as a lesser grouping so that should not be a big hurdle.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on January 05, 2008, 10:08:01 AM
I think the name of the new division is significant as it applies to recruiting.  I follow Illinois Wesleyan basketball, a program that looks for that "scholarship level" kid who either slips through the cracks or simply prefers a D3 academically vs their D2 or NAIA (sometimes even low D1) opportunities.  Guys like recent IWU 1st Team All-Americans Zach Freeman ('07), Adam Dauksas ('06), and Keelan Amelianovich ('06).  Or 2000 Josten's winner Korey Coon.

Because of the way high schoolers are misinformed by AAU coaches and overhyped by recruiting services, it can be very difficult to get student-athletes the caliber of the 4 mentioned above to even consider a D3 school.  Some are made to believe that "D3" is nothing but glorified intramurals.  I can't even imagine how "D4" would be perceived.

Unfortunate, but a reality.



 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 05, 2008, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on January 05, 2008, 10:08:01 AM
Because of the way high schoolers are misinformed by AAU coaches and overhyped by recruiting services, it can be very difficult to get student-athletes the caliber of the 4 mentioned above to even consider a D3 school.  Some are made to believe that "D3" is nothing but glorified intramurals.  I can't even imagine how "D4" would be perceived.

Unfortunate, but a reality.

Cannot something be done about these AAU coaches? (In some ways, I suspect they are a bane to all divisions, not just to D3.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on January 05, 2008, 12:45:34 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 05, 2008, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on January 05, 2008, 10:08:01 AM
Because of the way high schoolers are misinformed by AAU coaches and overhyped by recruiting services, it can be very difficult to get student-athletes the caliber of the 4 mentioned above to even consider a D3 school.  Some are made to believe that "D3" is nothing but glorified intramurals.  I can't even imagine how "D4" would be perceived.

Unfortunate, but a reality.

Cannot something be done about these AAU coaches? (In some ways, I suspect they are a bane to all divisions, not just to D3.)

Most AAU coaches are closely tied with numerous D1 and D2 staffs.  From what I have seen, they push their kids to go "as high as they can go" with very little regard for academics and the big picture.

IWU was recruiting a HS senior out of the Peoria, IL area last year year.  Scott Trost, IWU's former head coach, was also recruiting the kid to Division II Lewis U and he had several D1's talking to him as well.  Scott and I were talking about the kid in about February and he said, "Unfortunately for you guys, it'd be a real uphill battle to get a kid like that who is so prominent on his AAU team to consider a D3 school."  That stuck with me, and Scott was right.  He's now at a Division II school with no better than a so-so academic reputation.  Barely gave IWU a sniff.  Academically and from a playing time perspective, the D3's recruiting him would have been a much better fit (and money wasn't really a big factor).

But that is what I am getting it with the "D4" thing.  We're already fighting a tough battle just to get some of the top-notch kids to our schools now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ILive4This on January 05, 2008, 02:35:21 PM
Those D4 schools though are not really even in contention for major players even with the other D3 schools and that is the point. These are schools that more or less in many of their sports just have teams and whom ever emails the coach or shows up on day one is the team they have. This is perhaps lesser so in Basketball but still.

Also for the schools that do not have many sports Basketball being one of the few, they will be D4 because of the small number of offerings, but in many cases the money going into recruiting at these schools will be enough to grab the decent local talent they get now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on January 05, 2008, 02:55:21 PM
Titan, the AAU problem I think is also deep in the high school ranks as well. Coaches want players to go to as high a level as possible so they boost their own resumes in the process. I don't really know what can be done about that though, just a problem that will continue for Division III universities.

Has there ever been a legitimate push to try and expand membership in Division II? I would think that is an obvious solution for a lot of the problems. The much smaller DII membership is against change for their own good which is understandable, but could the NCAA mandate some change for the betterment of the entire system? If there were scholarship reductions helping budgetary contraints, I think it would be attractive to a lot of NAIA schools and some of the current DIII schools.

Or possibly, could DIII be split into divisions with one offering limited athletic scholarships and operating under scholarship rules concerning practice and redshirtiing. Regardless of the rhetoric being passed around right now involving the DIII philosophy and academics, it is apparent that much of the complaining stems from the huge difference in aid given in DIII.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on January 05, 2008, 03:19:16 PM
Ralph Turner's case in point about his School.

Administrators can change how the college looks at all sports. Some of the Centennial football games do not charge admission( Ursinus, McDaniel) or you can stand outside the fence and watch(Moravin). Then they claim that football is a drain or the Athletic Dept. budget. Other schools use ticket sales and or contributitions to improve the playing field. Dickinson is putting up lights and a new turf from contributitions, so is Muhlenberg( no lights).

So I think each college can be pro active with the sports teams or use the Swarthmore approach. OF course Swarthmore is in the Centennial Conference, hope it does not infect the rest.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on January 05, 2008, 03:30:10 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on January 05, 2008, 02:55:21 PM
Titan, the AAU problem I think is also deep in the high school ranks as well. Coaches want players to go to as high a level as possible so they boost their own resumes in the process. I don't really know what can be done about that though, just a problem that will continue for Division III universities.

Has there ever been a legitimate push to try and expand membership in Division II? I would think that is an obvious solution for a lot of the problems. The much smaller DII membership is against change for their own good which is understandable, but could the NCAA mandate some change for the betterment of the entire system? If there were scholarship reductions helping budgetary contraints, I think it would be attractive to a lot of NAIA schools and some of the current DIII schools.

Or possibly, could DIII be split into divisions with one offering limited athletic scholarships and operating under scholarship rules concerning practice and redshirtiing. Regardless of the rhetoric being passed around right now involving the DIII philosophy and academics, it is apparent that much of the complaining stems from the huge difference in aid given in DIII.

Just last week, while discussing this issue with some people close to IWU's men's basketball program, I posed the following question:

Could the CCIW compete as a Division II league?

I think most of us agreed that there is no reason, with scholarships, that the CCIW could not compete with local D2's like Lewis and Quincy and that in time, it could become a decent D2 league.  But then someone asked a question which none of us could answer: Why would the Presidents of each CCIW school support a move to D2?  The schools are losing revenue by giving scholarships, so what would the selling point be? Certainly the Presidents don't care that the student-athletes coming in are bigger, stronger, and quicker...right?  So what is the selling point?

The ironic thing about all of this is that in the last 25 years, many of our current (D3) members have left the NAIA to find a better competitive fit.  Illinois Wesleyan, for example, was the last CCIW school to leave the NAIA, coming to NCAA D3 in the 1983-84 season.  IWU was a very good non-scholarship NAIA program, but even with Jack Sikma on the team (a 7-time NBA all-star) from 1973-1977, the Titans could not compete with the scholarship programs in NAIA.  The deepest they went in the NAIA tourney was the quarterfinals in 1977...

1975
Illinois Wesleyan 76, Montevallo 67 
Grand Canyon 66, Illinois Wesleyan 63 

1976
Illinois Wesleyan 100, Southwest Baptist 84 
Henderson St. 68, Illinois Wesleyan 66

1977
Illinois Wesleyan 87, St. Augustine 67 
Illinois Wesleyan 85, Hawaii-Hilo 74 (ot) 
Henderson St. 87, Illinois Wesleyan 73 


This was a problem faced by so many current D3 teams that were NAIA -- they were in a division they couldn't compete nationally in.  Now, many Division III schools seem to feel the same way.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 05, 2008, 04:03:27 PM
I must respectfully disagree with Chris on the amount of aid going to the various D-III schools.  The NCAA has been monitoring this for several years, and the discrepancies are being identified.  If we are talking about the philosophical distinctions that may exist at a Earlham College or a Swarthmore versus a McMurry or a Mississippi College, then that is what I see as the core of this debate.

I read the background documents to imply a distinction between those academic institutions that have found a home for students who wish to continue in a formal athletic competition format.  I think that it is the role that athletics plays that is difference here.

On some campuses, the high concentration of student-athletes, e.g., Sewanee's one-quarter, or one student-athlete for every three student/non-athletes gives one dynamic.  The college experience is partially defined by the number of the athletic competition offerings that college offers.

When Swarthmore dropped football, wrestling and women's badminton to limit student-athletes to 15% or about one student-athlete for every 6 non-student/athletes, it made a philosophical statement about the role of athletics on the campus.

I also see the "claim on the name" D-III as another issue.  There are schools which wish to re-define the student-athlete experience, but do not want to be perceived as "de-emphasizing" student-athletics in the re-definition process towards more restrictive guidelines for participation.  (In my discussions on these boards, I have occasionally used D-IV to represent those who wish to form a new alignment, who wish to secede from D-III as it currently stands.)

As for D-II, it is neither fish nor fowl.  Every presidential keynote that I have seen about D-II delivered to D-II members is about defining itself and the community.  I see DI as very well-defined and something which now 300+ schools wish to attain.

I see D-III as something which is very well-defined and which nearly 450 schools are wishing to attain.  In those 450 are some who don't like how crowded the neighborhood has become, how many other schools are competing for the resources, and possibly who is in the neighborhood.  On the one hand the emphasis on athletics is too great for some.  On the other hand, the 1:6.5 access ratio that we have experienced in the past few seasons is quite desirable.  Someone is clamoring to keep the access to the playoffs via plentiful Pool C bids.

Where most schools are moving from is the NAIA, which is why they are in discussions with the NCAA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ILive4This on January 05, 2008, 04:06:41 PM
Another comment of note, is that while its rare (I can only think of this one instance in recent years) but teams like Lincoln (PA) did leave D3 seeking a more competitive atmosphere for some of their sports, and the ability to give athletics scholarships as well. Aside from there notorious 200+ pt game last season, Lincoln is one of the most decorated names in D3 track and field.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ILive4This on January 05, 2008, 04:13:16 PM
So if name recognition is one of the issues, why not move UAA and NESCAC schools, all of which are ranked in the top 40 in their respective academic polls to Division 1 and create a subdivision of D1 with no scholarships. I am simply playing devils advocate here, but you could move the IVY League into this subdivision as well.

Everyone knows that as good as PENN is in the IVY league, when they played UNC this season they were going to get crushed even at home in the Palestra. Now Penn would most likely beat the likes of Amherst, Brandeis, Williams and Wash U pretty badly as it stands right now, but that is simply because they can boast the D1 status when recruiting. Academically schools like Brown and Cornell are no better than Wash U, Chicago, Williams, and Amherst. Yet recruiting with no scholarships is easier for the Lions, Tigers and Bears (sorry had to do it as soon as I realized all were in the Ivy League) because they can say hey good education + D1 basketball. Give it a few years (maybe a decade) and these conferences would be on a much more even playing field.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 05, 2008, 04:25:44 PM
Quote from: old ends on January 05, 2008, 03:19:16 PM
Ralph Turner's case in point about his School.

Administrators can change how the college looks at all sports. Some of the Centennial football games do not charge admission(Ursinus, McDaniel) or you can stand outside the fence and watch(Moravian). Then they claim that football is a drain or the Athletic Dept. budget. Other schools use ticket sales and or contributions to improve the playing field. Dickinson is putting up lights and a new turf from contributions, so is Muhlenberg( no lights).

So I think each college can be pro active with the sports teams or use the Swarthmore approach. OF course Swarthmore is in the Centennial Conference, hope it does not infect the rest.

Old ends, when McMurry decided to upgrade its football and track facilities, the utilization showed that 2/3's of the student body used the facilities as football, track and field and cross country athletes of course, but also for the marching band, intra-murals and physical education classes.  The improved facilities made it easier to host high school and junior high school events on the campus.

The vote to fund the improvements was made for the sake of improving the quality of the educational experience for the community.

I hope that the changes at Dickinson and Muhlenberg improve other aspects of the university community, besides football.   :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on January 05, 2008, 04:40:05 PM
Last year, Amherst spent $4.27 million on athletics, which is a tremendous amount for a DIII.  Penn spent $25.6 million.  Apple and oranges.

Ralph Turner is nailing this to the wall for everyone.  There are real philosophical differences in DIII that make a new division make sense.  I was vague in my previous post about the name part of it.  What I meant to say is that there may be some new ways of referring to divisions that don't use, I, II, III and IV.  Some marketing company will make a fortune deciding that.  Maybe Pat can run a poll/contest to name the divisions if this all goes through.  ;D

The recruiting dis-advantage is there if you allow it to be.  Non-athletic scholarship competition should not be presented as a lesser experience.  The long term values that are embedded in the DIII experience (when properly done) should be a selling point.

Also, the group that would be projected to self-select to DIV (or whatever it will be called) are not the weak sisters of DIII.  There are some very strong programs across the board that would seem to support the move.  This is all conjecture at this point, obviously, until everyone knows what the options are.  That will not be for a few months, at least.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 05, 2008, 04:41:27 PM
IL4T, I think that you raise a good question.  The most prestigious members in D3 are the UAA's, the NESCAC's, etc. They have defined the model and have succeeded in it.

Maybe we are looking at the fruits of too much success.

As for Lincoln PA, their "returning" to the Central IAA in D2 is a return to its roots.  Unfortunately, they were one of the teams that was left out massive consolidation of independent schools in the early part of this decade, e.g., the NEAC.  :-\

(Chowan is also exploring options, especially football with the CIAA (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=3163407), too.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 05, 2008, 04:52:55 PM
Quote from: joehakes on January 05, 2008, 04:40:05 PM
...
Ralph Turner is nailing this to the wall for everyone.  There are real philosophical differences in DIII that make a new division make sense.  I was vague in my previous post about the name part of it.  What I meant to say is that there may be some new ways of referring to divisions that don't use, I, II, III and IV.  Some marketing company will make a fortune deciding that.  Maybe Pat can run a poll/contest to name the divisions if this all goes through.  ;D

...
I just hope that Pat has the necessary domains names when that comes!   :-\   :o   :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 05, 2008, 05:05:13 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on January 05, 2008, 03:30:10 PM

Just last week, while discussing this issue with some people close to IWU's men's basketball program, I posed the following question:

Could the CCIW compete as a Division II league?

I think most of us agreed that there is no reason, with scholarships, that the CCIW could not compete with local D2's like Lewis and Quincy and that in time, it could become a decent D2 league.  But then someone asked a question which none of us could answer: Why would the Presidents of each CCIW school support a move to D2?  The schools are losing revenue by giving scholarships, so what would the selling point be? Certainly the Presidents don't care that the student-athletes coming in are bigger, stronger, and quicker...right?  So what is the selling point?

The ironic thing about all of this is that in the last 25 years, many of our current (D3) members have left the NAIA to find a better competitive fit.  Illinois Wesleyan, for example, was the last CCIW school to leave the NAIA, coming to NCAA D3 in the 1983-84 season.  IWU was a very good non-scholarship NAIA program, but even with Jack Sikma on the team (a 7-time NBA all-star) from 1973-1977, the Titans could not compete with the scholarship programs in NAIA.  The deepest they went in the NAIA tourney was the quarterfinals in 1977...

1975
Illinois Wesleyan 76, Montevallo  (AL now D-II Gulf South Conference) 67 
Grand Canyon (now D-II Pac West Conference) 66, Illinois Wesleyan 63 

1976
Illinois Wesleyan 100, Southwest Baptist (MO, now D-II Mid-America IAA) 84 
Henderson St. (AR, now D-II Gulf South Conference) 68, Illinois Wesleyan 66

1977
Illinois Wesleyan 87, St. Augustine (D-II Central IAA) 67 
Illinois Wesleyan 85, Hawaii-Hilo (D-2 Pac West Conference) 74 (ot) 
Henderson St. (AR, now D-II GSC)  87, Illinois Wesleyan 73 


This was a problem faced by so many current D3 teams that were NAIA -- they were in a division they couldn't compete nationally in.  Now, many Division III schools seem to feel the same way.
Quod est demonstratum, QED!


I think that the CCIW is more prestigious in its current format!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ILive4This on January 05, 2008, 05:25:14 PM
Yes Amherst spent 4 million compared to 20+ million, but that is also relative to the number of students at the school. When you look at how much money is spend per student at the school and then further more per student athlete, the differences are less so (albeit still large).

However take a look at a school like U Chicago (a former D1 school), with an endowment of over 6 Billion dollars, which is very similar to that of U Penn and other non-harvard Ivy's

This clearly shows that the financials are there, if the need to put the money into the athletics also became present.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on January 05, 2008, 05:35:41 PM
Ralph,   I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing in regards to financial aid. The NCAA does do a great job of monitoring campuses to make sure that athletics is falling in line with the rest of the student population regarding financial aid received. But there is a large difference in tuition costs and financial aid given at different universities which also creates an unlevel playing field.

I do understand there are major philosophical differences regarding the importance of athletics in Division III and schools wanting to align themselves with like-minded institutions, but I think one large component of that is the bottom line cost for student-athletes to attend which obviously is based on what the rest of the student population is receiving. One example being the public vs private schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 05, 2008, 05:45:39 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on January 05, 2008, 05:25:14 PM
However take a look at a school like U Chicago (a former D1 school), with an endowment of over 6 Billion dollars, which is very similar to that of U Penn and other non-Harvard Ivy's 

Not to pick any nits, but the University of Chicago got out of big-time athletics well before there were three NCAA divisions. Likely a good thing, too ....

BTW how does what Amherst spends on athletics compare to the rest of D3?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 05, 2008, 05:57:05 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on January 05, 2008, 05:35:41 PM
Ralph,   I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing in regards to financial aid. The NCAA does do a great job of monitoring campuses to make sure that athletics is falling in line with the rest of the student population regarding financial aid received. But there is a large difference in tuition costs and financial aid given at different universities which also creates an unlevel playing field.

I do understand there are major philosophical differences regarding the importance of athletics in Division III and schools wanting to allign themselves with like-minded institutions, but I think one large component of that is the bottom line cost for student-athletes to attend which obviously is based on what the rest of the student population is receiving. One example being the public vs private schools.

Yes, Chris!  The 800-lb gorillas lurking in the ASC are UT-Tyler and UT-Dallas.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: fossywriter8 on January 05, 2008, 07:48:30 PM
"On some campuses, the high concentration of student-athletes, e.g., Sewanee's one-quarter, or one student-athlete for every three student/non-athletes gives one dynamic.  The college experience is partially defined by the number of the athletic competition offerings that college offers.
"When Swarthmore dropped football, wrestling and women's badminton to limit student-athletes to 15% or about one student-athlete for every 6 non-student/athletes, it made a philosophical statement about the role of athletics on the campus."


I was surprised to learn some colleges have a student-athlete to student ratio. I never heard of such a thing, especially when I attended Central College (1991 graduate) and played football and ran track for the Dutch.
As with most D-III schools, we had a small campus with around 2,000 students. I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm sure close to if not half of our student body played a sport — many played two (and that includes treating the combo of indoor and outdoor track as one sport).
The ratio idea sounds like a big step backward to me.
Do Sewanee and Swarthmore turn away kids because they want to play sports in college, or do they admit more non-athletes they wouldn't otherwise let attend school just to meet the ratio?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ILive4This on January 05, 2008, 08:47:47 PM
I understand that Chicago left the Big 10 long long ago, however I am simply saying they have money available comparable with many like-minded d1 schools.

Amherst's Money is toward the very very top of D3 money spent over all, but I am not sure what it comes down to per student or per student athlete.

Williams spends about 4 million as well, both have football. NYU spends around 3 million I believe, they do not have football. Wash U is around this amount however with football.

The avg difference between a school with and without football is 400K
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on January 05, 2008, 08:49:18 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on January 05, 2008, 05:25:14 PM
Yes Amherst spent 4 million compared to 20+ million, but that is also relative to the number of students at the school. When you look at how much money is spend per student at the school and then further more per student athlete, the differences are less so (albeit still large).

However take a look at a school like U Chicago (a former D1 school), with an endowment of over 6 Billion dollars, which is very similar to that of U Penn and other non-harvard Ivy's

This clearly shows that the financials are there, if the need to put the money into the athletics also became present.

But that is the point.  They don't wish to put that money into athletics and their campuses are not set up to be DI programs.  That is why DIII exists, for philosophical reasons, and it provides an arena for those schools who want athletes who are also students.  Are there examples of the "other" way of doing things in both divisions?  Yes, but overall everyone has found the level where they want to be.

Every college has a student-athlete to athlete ratio, by the simple use of mathematics.  And every school at the DIII level will be pretty aware of what percentage of their students are varsity athletes.  Just as they would know what percentage are in the natural sciences, humanities, sophomores, full-payers, etc.  Some schools do use the percentage to gauge how many programs they will run or what type of admissions "slotting" they might need to use.  I don't know of any schools that would turn a student away because they wanted to participate in athletics, but schools will limit the number of special admissions that athletics is allowed, as they do with other affinity groups.  The academically elite schools do this all the time, and several have very strong athletic programs.  There is really nothing evil-minded about it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 06, 2008, 12:41:19 AM
Quote from: ILive4This on January 05, 2008, 08:47:47 PM
I understand that Chicago left the Big 10 long long ago, however I am simply saying they have money available comparable with many like-minded d1 schools.

There is no question that all of the UAA schools could be like Northwestern, Rice, Stanford, Vanderbilt, or Duke and play D-1 sports (and succeed at some).

But they don't want to. It's not who they are.

Just like the Wisconsin branch schools could emulate the Minnesota schools like Mankato, Crookston, Bemidji State or Winona State and be D-2, but they'd rather not. They chose the D-3 model.

And a large endowment doesn't necessarily mean they have that extra money to spend on athletics.  Most endowment is restricted - usually to scholarships or other such programs. It's not something you can move around like annual fund money. And you can only spend so much of it per year - otherwise you self-immolate.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on January 06, 2008, 10:00:31 AM
It seems to me there are 3 different types of schools currently in NCAA Division III.

Group A* - Regional Liberal Arts Schools
* Examples - Illinois Wesleyan, Wooster, DePauw, Lawrence, Wittenberg, Puget Sound
* These schools represent the largest % of current NCAA D3 membership
* Although many of these schools are ranked in the same "Liberal Arts" category as schools like Williams and Amherst by US News & World Report, they are regional.  Students (and student-athletes) tend to come from a 200 mile radius of campus.

Group B* - Elite National Universities
* Examples - Wash U, Williams, Amherst, Kenyon, Chicago
* A small % of current D3 membership
* Schools that have the reputation and financial resources to recruit nationally

Group C* - Public Universities
* Examples - UW-Stevens Point, William Paterson, Rowan, UT-Dallas
* A small % of current membership
* Most students come from within the state
* Cost is significantly less than schools in Groups I and II.

* My group names only.


Am I missing any obvious grouping(s)?

The philosophical split seems to be within Group A.  Many Group A members have the desire and ability to compete athletically with Groups B and C, despite perceived advantages (academic or cost) of B and C.  But many Group A members do not have the desire/ability to compete with other Group A members or Group B and C schools.  Even within current Division III conferences comprised of Group A schools, there appear to be splits.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on January 06, 2008, 10:49:49 AM
I have been reading about the lower tuition for public schools v private.  Tuition is lower for public universities but the aid offered, at least in NJ is nothing compared to what private schools offer.  I was accepted at NJCU and Moravian.  I chose NJCU due to the much lower tuition.  When I look back at it I should have chosen Moravian, I would have gotten more aid from Moravian and come out of college with a significantly lower debt.  My brother had the same issue, he attended the University of Scranton for two years then transferred to William Paterson.  He thought he would be saving our parents money, they ended up having to take out larger loans due to the lack of financial aid from WP.  The Public schools may have lower tuition but they also have much smaller endowments than most privates have.

I think financially the private schools have a bigger advantage than the public schools do.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on January 06, 2008, 11:21:33 AM
That is not the case in the part of the country I live in, Knightstalker.  I'm very familiar with situations where a student-athlete from Wisconsin was recruited by a CCIW school and a WIAC, and the "out-of-pocket" expenses aren't even in the ballpark of each other.

Here are the current tuition + room/board costs per U.S. News & World Report:

WIAC
UW-Eau Claire: $10,438
UW-LaCrosse: $10,525
UW-Oshkosh: $11,110
UW-Platteville: $10,330
UW-River Falls: $9904
UW-Stevens Point: $10,719
UW-Stout: $11,847
UW-Superior: $10,153
UW-Whitewater: $10,410

(in-state tuition)

CCIW
Augustana: $33,717
Carthage: $32,000
Elmhurst: $31,784
Illinois Wesleyan: $37,780
Millikin: $31,055
North Central: $32,241
North Park: $24,350
Wheaton: $30,982
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on January 06, 2008, 12:32:05 PM
Q, that may be the case with the CCIW, but I would contend that if they choose to, they could offer aid packages to students that would cover almost the entire cost.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 06, 2008, 12:51:35 PM
The actual out-of-pocket cost varies so much from school to school and student to student that generalizations are both difficult and unwise, but the 'typical' case (if there is such a thing!) is somewhere between what KS and Q are saying. 

The 'list prices' are nearly irrelevant, since so few students pay full list price.  Usually (not always) private schools will be able to give more scholarship aid (and government or other third-party aid will generally be larger since the list price is higher), so the out-of-pocket differential is generally much less than first meets the eye.  However, I dare say that the out-of-pocket differential only fairly rarely disappears entirely (or, in KS's scenario, actually reverses) - bottom line, private schools will generally cost the student (or parents!) more, just not nearly as much more as the list price differential would suggest.

Because of this 'sticker shock' disadvantage, some schools (North Park as an example) have lowered their list price (with a corresponding decrease in available aid).  On the other hand, many schools wear their list price as a badge of honor - (subliminal message) we cost more, we must be better.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on January 06, 2008, 01:09:51 PM
A huge difference from school to school in Division III is "academic money."  School A may be less selective than School B and willing to offer academic scholarships at lower levels (of academic credentials) than School B.  I am always amazed at the difference in price quoted from school to school to the same student...certainly not just the differential in "list price."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ILive4This on January 06, 2008, 01:17:49 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 06, 2008, 12:41:19 AM
Quote from: ILive4This on January 05, 2008, 08:47:47 PM
I understand that Chicago left the Big 10 long long ago, however I am simply saying they have money available comparable with many like-minded d1 schools.

There is no question that all of the UAA schools could be like Northwestern, Rice, Stanford, Vanderbilt, or Duke and play D-1 sports (and succeed at some).

But they don't want to. It's not who they are.

Just like the Wisconsin branch schools could emulate the Minnesota schools like Mankato, Crookston, Bemidji State or Winona State and be D-2, but they'd rather not. They chose the D-3 model.

And a large endowment doesn't necessarily mean they have that extra money to spend on athletics.  Most endowment is restricted - usually to scholarships or other such programs. It's not something you can move around like annual fund money. And you can only spend so much of it per year - otherwise you self-immolate.

See I do not think every UAA school could make it financially feasible, Brandeis' endowment is still well below 1 Billion, Carnegie Mellon's also below 1B but they have other money not counted I believe from the respective foundations. Case was nearly in bankruptcy recently having to dig into their endowment to save themselves.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ILive4This on January 06, 2008, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on January 06, 2008, 12:32:05 PM
Q, that may be the case with the CCIW, but I would contend that if they choose to, they could offer aid packages to students that would cover almost the entire cost.



Also I know many of the schools named in the UAA and NESCAC, or for the most part the "GROUP B" schools usually, have Total costs at over 40K, that being said usually 2/3 of students will get some form of aid (this gets pretty close to the percentage that need aid) and the average package is usually not much less than 30K. Therefore leaving the average student paying just over 10K to go to school including room and board usually. Making is as expensive or cheaper than many public schools.

These kind of statistics makes it much easier to "steal" a kid who will not get playing time at a D1 state school, or from a poor academic D2 state school.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on January 06, 2008, 01:38:43 PM
Quote from: ILive4This on January 06, 2008, 01:24:25 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on January 06, 2008, 12:32:05 PM
Q, that may be the case with the CCIW, but I would contend that if they choose to, they could offer aid packages to students that would cover almost the entire cost.



Also I know many of the schools named in the UAA and NESCAC, or for the most part the "GROUP B" schools usually, have Total costs at over 40K, that being said usually 2/3 of students will get some form of aid (this gets pretty close to the percentage that need aid) and the average package is usually not much less than 30K. Therefore leaving the average student paying just over 10K to go to school including room and board usually. Making is as expensive or cheaper than many public schools.

These kind of statistics makes it much easier to "steal" a kid who will not get playing time at a D1 state school, or from a poor academic D2 state school.

Illinois Wesleyan goes head to head with Wash U and Chicago every year on top notch recruits like Adam Dauksas (IWU '06), Keelan Amelianovich (IWU '06), and Sean Wallis (Wash U '08).  Despite Chicago's "list price" being about $47,000 and Wash U's just about the same, that "final price" for the UAA schools is never much higher at all than IWU (list price $37,000), and they're even lower quite often. 

I'm certainly aware that the "list price" is not the final price.  No question about it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on January 06, 2008, 02:09:03 PM
Here's a very good website to give you the averages at each school for tuition and also financial aid given out. These are just averages so it really does not show you the "best deal" a school can give out, but it gives you an idea.

http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/ (http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/)

I would agree with Titan Q about the "final price" though. Regardless of tuition costs, some schools will give out a certain number of "free rides" every year and some do not. But whatever scholarship system is provided for the general student body, it is provided for athletics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 06, 2008, 07:09:55 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on January 06, 2008, 10:00:31 AM
It seems to me there are 3 different types of schools currently in NCAA Division III.

Group A* - Regional Liberal Arts Schools
* Examples - Illinois Wesleyan, Wooster, DePauw, Lawrence, Wittenberg, Puget Sound
* These schools represent the largest % of current NCAA D3 membership
* Although many of these schools are ranked in the same "Liberal Arts" category as schools like Williams and Amherst by US News & World Report, they are regional.  Students (and student-athletes) tend to come from a 200 mile radius of campus.

Group B* - Elite National Universities
* Examples - Wash U, Williams, Amherst, Kenyon, Chicago
* A small % of current D3 membership
* Schools that have the reputation and financial resources to recruit nationally

I think Williams, Amherst and Kenyon  fit more in A. Honestly, a school like Wabash recruits nationally, and wants to have students from Texas, Mississippi, Arizona, etc. to diversify its student body, but no matter what they'll get mostly what's around there. In fact, I think A and B should be combined. Wabash has played Wash U. in several sports for years and Chicago and DePauw have faced off in several sports for years as well. They fit together nicely and attract the same caliber of student.

Even though schools like Kenyon, Oberlin, Amherst and Williams are more national than Wooster, they still will fit in with their small liberal arts brethren in philosophy and mission.

The split in A is the smaller schools, I think, that rely on students that pay the full freight, don't sponsor as many sports, and don't have the same rigorous admission standards.

Wabash left the HCAC because it didn't feel comfortable in competing with a school like Anderson. In fact, I think the issues that caused DePauw, Wabash, and Rose to leave the HCAC (though Rose is back) are many of the same issues of D3 / D4. It's not ironic that the president of Earlham, who refused to join the then-ICAC when it was being formed (that later became the HCAC) is one of the leading proponents for the D3/D4 split.

Private schools with large endowments have an advantage. Most endowment is tied into financial aid, and so they can compete for students even if they're $30,000 'over' the tuition of the publics. This is where endowments come into play. For those schools, sometimes the trick is to convince a student that they can continue their athletic career and afford the education at a small private than blending into the large public and being an IM star.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 06, 2008, 07:30:18 PM
As Smedindy outlined in the previous post, I believe the challenge for these "A" and "B" schools is to find 150 colleagues to create the new division.  They were the ones that were identified in the background documents. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on January 09, 2008, 02:59:29 PM
I am at John Wayne Airport waiting for my flight home and thought I would post about what I heard at the AFCA convention about the D3/D4 issue.

1)  The schools wanting D4 want to have more restrictive control over the athletic programs in the areas of  a) less recruiting emphasis, b) smaller and less well paid staffs,  c) resticted playoff opportunities ranging from a smaller playoff for just their members to no playoffs at all, d) greatly resticting the access of coaches to athletes when not in-season, e) playing teams like those that fit the above criteria only and f) a more restrictive environment that de-emphasizes athletics

2)  The D4 proponents are finding out that they do not have anywhere near the base they thought they would have and are indeed a small minority in the overall current D3 structure.

3)  While it is admiitedly a small sample (10-12), every coach I spoke to was not in favor of the D4 model.

4)  There was not any talk by any of my sources about forcing entire conferences to make decisions but instead it would be a school by school decision.

As stated above this was a small sample but did include several regions of the country.  The overall feeling I got was that there would be no wholesale exodus of teams to the D4 model.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 09, 2008, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: roocru on January 09, 2008, 02:59:29 PM
3)  While it is admiitedly a small sample (10-12), every coach I spoke to was not in favor of the D4 model.

I'm not by any means well-connected, but I do pay as close attention as I can to what goes on around me here in NCAC-land, where "D4" fever is perhaps at its highest.  And I have yet to meet a coach who I would describe as being in favor of a "D4" landscape.  In fact, I have heard from reliable sources that some coaches in the NCAC will leave if their schools go "D4." 

I think that's not unexpected.  Coaches are, after all, coaches.  But coaches are not driving this bus.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 09, 2008, 10:01:29 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 09, 2008, 04:08:58 PM
I think that's not unexpected.  Coaches are, after all, coaches.  But coaches are not driving this bus.

I was just about to make this point.  It would be tough to find any in the competitively-inclined personnel who inhabit the coaching ranks agreeing to take on a less-competitive assignment by choice.  And that trait is not limited to football and basketball coaches.

I guess I would be shocked if the college presidents agreed to a D-IV already-- that bunch tends to be a conservative lot who would want to gauge campus opinion before committing to such a change.  In theory, however, I can see a lot of college presidents in favor of the idea, but not many willing to sign up quite yet.

So the question I have is: who will be at the convention?  College presidents or their athletic directors?  The latter may be in the same camp as the AFCA members are.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2008, 01:04:55 AM
I think that I read that the attendance at this NCAA Convention is way ahead of previous years.

A question for the readers who know their faculty/coaching makeup of "D-IV" institutions...

How many Golf/Cross Country/ Baseball/Swimming/Tennis coaches are tenured professors of Kinesiology or Chemistry or History at their institutions?

I think that "tenure" trumps most philosophical "coaching" opinions.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 10, 2008, 01:12:54 AM
I know at Wabash none of the coaches are 'tenured', though they do have associated faculty ranks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2008, 02:59:12 PM
D-III Management Council Pre-convention Press Release (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/home?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/Division+III+Management+Council+preparing+for+Convention+-+01-07-08+NCAA+News).

One pertinent piece of legislation would permit Provisional 3rd and 4th year schools to count towards the seven member requirement for the AQ.

This is sponsored by the NEAC and the North Atlantic Conference.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 10, 2008, 07:55:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2008, 02:59:12 PM
This is sponsored by the NEAC and the North Atlantic Conference.


Hmm.  I wonder why they came up with this one?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 10, 2008, 11:59:37 PM
Quote from: roocru on January 09, 2008, 02:59:29 PM
I am at John Wayne Airport waiting for my flight home and thought I would post about what I heard at the AFCA convention about the D3/D4 issue.

1)  The schools wanting D4 want to have more restrictive control over the athletic programs in the areas of  a) less recruiting emphasis, b) smaller and less well paid staffs,  c) resticted playoff opportunities ranging from a smaller playoff for just their members to no playoffs at all, d) greatly resticting the access of coaches to athletes when not in-season, e) playing teams like those that fit the above criteria only and f) a more restrictive environment that de-emphasizes athletics

2)  The D4 prooponents are finding out that they do not have anywhere near the base they thought they would have and are indeed a small minority in the overall current D3 structure.

3)  While it is admiitedly a small sample (10-12), every coach I spoke to was not in favor of the D4 model.

4)  There was not any talk by any of my sources about forcing entire conferences to make decisions but instead it would be a school by school decision.

As stated above this was a small sample but did include several regions of the country.  The overall feeling I got was that there would be no wholesale exodus of teams to the D4 model.

1b and 1d particularly struck home with me.  The d4 model seems to me to be very similar to what I experienced 40 years ago at IWU (though I suspect I was naive in other ways about fball and bball).  Do d4 schools want to go with 'hired guns', but isolate and underpay them?

Don Larsen (fball coach) was my track coach and PE prof.  Dennie Bridges (bball coach) was my tennis coach and PE prof.  IWU at the time was about 2/3 the size of my high school - should I have avoided these guys like the plague during the off-season (whenever that was)? 

Does d4 want to have fball and bball (and all other) coaches be outsiders who have no relationship with students?  I honestly have no clue what they are thinking, or which planet they are from.  To divorce coaches from faculty would seem to be the reality they are fighting, not something they should be advocating.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 11, 2008, 06:32:09 AM
I hope that K-Mack will cover some of the material that was discussed in our conversation with K-Mack, McMurry Head Coach Donnie Gray and me on the impact that the coaching staff has on student-athletes making the transition to college and being on their own.

We have plenty of self-starters who play athletics in D-III, but there are a huge number of kids who do not handle the sudden freedom/responsibility as well as their parents would like. 

I read a quote by University of Texas head baseball coach, Augie Garrido, 5-time D-I Champion of the College World Series at Cal State Fullerton and UT.

QuoteIn professional baseball, the people are used for the betterment of the sport. In college, the game is used for the betterment of the people. -- Augie Garrido.

If this is the core of what we need to protect about our understanding of the role of athletics in D-III, then we should strive as hard as possible to maintain the systems and procedures in place to achieve that goal.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 11, 2008, 07:43:41 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2008, 02:59:12 PM

One pertinent piece of legislation would permit Provisional 3rd and 4th year schools to count towards the seven member requirement for the AQ.

This is sponsored by the NEAC and the North Atlantic Conference.

1.  Would games with provisionals count as in-region games then?

2.  I thought that D3 would remaing the same but that D4 would be the schools that wanted to red-shirt, increase access to athletes during the off-season, more recruiting emphasis (ie fewer restrictions).  Is that model being discussed? 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 11, 2008, 08:48:45 AM
Good morning, Wilburt.  My answers are in italics.

Quote from: wilburt on January 11, 2008, 07:43:41 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 10, 2008, 02:59:12 PM

One pertinent piece of legislation would permit Provisional 3rd and 4th year schools to count towards the seven member requirement for the AQ.

This is sponsored by the NEAC and the North Atlantic Conference.

1.  Would games with provisionals count as in-region games then? Currently, games versus  3rd and 4th year provisional schools do count for "in-region" sake.  I see a "Yes" as affirming the role of the conference to assimilate new members.  The NEAC and the NAC have served that function more than any other conferences.

2.  I thought that D3 would remaing the same but that D4 would be the schools that wanted to red-shirt, increase access to athletes during the off-season, more recruiting emphasis (ie fewer restrictions).  Is that model being discussed?

I don't think that the nomenclature has been determined.  I have tried to be consistent in calling those seeking a new division from the current D-III as the D-IV's, the minority of schools (maybe up to 150 schools) seceding from the current D-III, and forming something new.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 11, 2008, 02:49:17 PM
Games with third- and fourth-year provisionals already count as in-region games. I would be surprised if it extended beyond that because those schools would not have to be in compliance in as many areas in their first and second year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 11, 2008, 03:22:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 11, 2008, 02:49:17 PM
Games with third- and fourth-year provisionals already count as in-region games. I would be surprised if it extended beyond that because those schools would not have to be in compliance in as many areas in their first and second year.

I would be surprised as well.  Interesting link to an article from last September's insidehighered.com on recruiting/admissions and how athletic programs merge with academics.  If it has been posted already forgive me in advance.

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/09/07/class
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 11, 2008, 03:52:50 PM
Quote from: wilburt on January 11, 2008, 03:22:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 11, 2008, 02:49:17 PM
Games with third- and fourth-year provisionals already count as in-region games. I would be surprised if it extended beyond that because those schools would not have to be in compliance in as many areas in their first and second year.

I would be surprised as well.  Interesting link to an article from last September's insidehighered.com on recruiting/admissions and how athletic programs merge with academics.  If it has been posted already forgive me in advance.

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/09/07/class

Our friend Wilburt contributes an excellent article from Inside Higher Ed about a book by Mitchell L Stevens, a sociologist at NYU.  Other D3's mentioned in the article include Hamilton College and Wesleyan.

Quote
...
The subject on which Stevens said he was most surprised was athletics. For all the talk about preferences for minority or legacy applicants, Stevens said that the preference that counted the most was sports ability. There are some anecdotes that will reinforce the stereotypes of many academics about jocks. Some coaches would, with some regularity, push for the admission of athletes who were not top students. Admissions officers in the book are particularly critical of the "helmet sports" — football and hockey.

But Stevens also discusses coaches who consistently would come to the admissions office with lists of desired applicants who were as strong in the library as on the field. There were many coaches he saw who put enough emphasis on recruiting the right kind of mental talent that their lists were people who would have been admitted without extra help.

"I would say one of the largest intellectual surprises of my career was to be able to set aside the notion that sports are a pollutant on the main business of higher education and to see sports as part of the business of higher education," Stevens said. For many academics, "the notion that sports pollutes is deeply ingrained in your identity," but that's not really the case, he said.

While admissions officers nationally complain about fending off coaches, Stevens notes in his book that coaches attract much of the (academic) talent because they are constantly on the road, looking for high schoolers who might fit in well. "Coaches may be the people who bug you, but they are also a really valuable part of the whole recruitment machinery," he said.

Perhaps more important, he added that working in admissions drove home for him as never before that many smart high school students want athletics as part of their college experience. "There are a whole lot of very serious 17 year olds who care about this," he said.
...

Please read the entire article and select from the comments which have been added.  The article is really worthwhile to this discussion.

+1 Wilburt!  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 12, 2008, 07:40:50 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on January 09, 2008, 10:01:29 PM
...

I guess I would be shocked if the college presidents agreed to a D-IV already-- that bunch tends to be a conservative lot who would want to gauge campus opinion before committing to such a change.  In theory, however, I can see a lot of college presidents in favor of the idea, but not many willing to sign up quite yet.

So the question I have is: who will be at the convention?  College presidents or their athletic directors?  The latter may be in the same camp as the AFCA members are.
Over 120 D-III Presidents are registered at the Convention (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/home?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/Division+III+presidents+post+record+preregistration+-+01-12-08+NCAA+News)

Headed towards the highest total ever...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 13, 2008, 12:21:09 PM
Things are starting to get going at the convention.  Forum begins feedback on restructuring discussion (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g38nYBSYGYxqb6kWhCjggRb31fj_zcVP0A_YLc0IhyR0VFAABTEJw!/delta/base64xml/L0lDU0lKQ1RPN29na21BISEvb0VvUUFBSVFnakZJQUFRaENFSVFqR0VBLzRKRmlDbzBlaDFpY29uUVZHaGQtc0lRIS83XzBfNVVWLzQyNjAwNA!!?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_0_5UV_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Association-wide/Forum+begins+feedback+on+restructuring+discussion+-+01-13-08+NCAA+News)

A few selected quotes:

QuoteCurran said the Division III working group's model for a new division seeks to open up a new membership option that features "broader institutional sports sponsorship and an educational experience where athletics plays a less dominant role," more opportunity for student-athletes to be involved in campus activities, more accountability for adhering to the division's philosophy, and more presidential oversight of athletics.

He also suggested those types of criteria may be more appropriate for creating a division than others that have been suggested to the working groups.

...

QuoteAn athletics director, Jim Nelson of Suffolk University, asked whether there is another option for addressing growth-related issues if a new division is proposed but rejected at the 2009 Convention.

Curran responded the membership will have substantial opportunities before then to make its views known, including through a survey that will be conducted later this winter, and pledged the working group would take seriously any alternative approaches suggested through that process before finalizing any proposal.

But he also suggested, based on discussions with Division III presidents earlier during the day of the forum, that support for some kind of restructuring is growing as the reasons for considering it become better understood.

From my perspective, I am a bit more comfortable that this is going in front of the entire NCAA for it to be solved, instead of forcing D3 to deal with what is, at a base level, an entire NCAA problem.  This article also makes it seem that, while D-IV sounds like it is moving ahead, it isn't necessarily on the "fast track" that is going forward by ramming down doors.  While that could be rhetoric, the quotes herein seem to indicate that D-III will be forced to act if the entire association does not.

Last, the apparent speakers here seem to be various D-2 and D-3 schools, which begs the question: were the D-1 schools in attendance for this?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 13, 2008, 12:27:35 PM
Another interesting note in the NCAA news today:   Presidents Council considers tougher penalties for financial aid violations (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g38nYBSYGYxqb6kWhCjggRX4_83FSgeKQ5UMA0NEw_Kic1PTG5Uj9Y31s_QL8gNzSiPN9REQDSw7cx/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWlDU1lBIS9JTGpBQUV5QUJFUkVSRUlrLzRGR2dkWW5LSjBGUm9YZnJDRUEhLzdfMF81VVYvNDk5NjMw?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_0_5UV_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/Presidents+Council+considers+tougher+penalties+for+financial+aid+violations+-+01-13-08+NCAA+News)

QuoteThe Division III Financial Aid Committee reported on options for moving beyond the educationally oriented penalties that have been imposed for violations discovered during the first three years of the reporting process. The committee suggested a framework for penalties that could trigger a comprehensive compliance assessment of an athletics program following a first violation, followed by a public reprimand after the second violation, followed by a loss of championship access after a third violation

This seems to indicate that the Presidents really want to level the playing field here and are willing to throw the book at some of the alleged "cheaters".  Given that we have yet to compute even the second year's worth of data on this issue, perhaps some of the preliminary data has indicated some of the "usual suspects" have made the list again?

As a side note, in that same article:
QuoteIn a review of proposed legislation slated for voting January 14 at the NCAA Convention, the Council also agreed to oppose an amendment-to-amendment on Proposal No. 10  to permit third- and fourth-year provisional members to be counted by a league toward the seven-institution requirement for earning automatic qualification to a Division III championship. The Council also opposes the basic proposal, which would permit any provisional member to be counted for automatic qualification.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 13, 2008, 02:40:38 PM
Johnnie, thanks for the excerpts.

I read the re-structuring article and came away with the impression that the proponents had multiple doors slammed in their faces, and now they propose (somewhat speciously) that they want additional input.

QuoteCurran said the Division III working group's model for a new division seeks to open up a new membership option that features "broader institutional sports sponsorship and an educational experience where athletics plays a less dominant role," more opportunity for student-athletes to be involved in campus activities, more accountability for adhering to the division's philosophy, and more presidential oversight of athletics.

Dr Curran, the president at University of Dayton, has already imposed success control of the football program at his institution.  What more do he want?

It seems to me that they did not get the support for cutting the season from 17-18 weeks to something closer to 13 weeks.  If we read the blog by Jimmy Bartolotta from MIT (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2007/12/07/an-introduction/), what response do we have from the presidents that would change the college experience for those student-athletes?  Jimmy says the course work at MIT is such that one must choose three of the four "S's": Sleep, Study, Sports, Social.

If the proponents wish to shorten the season, then one can de-emphasize the number of at-large berths that the division awards.

The standard requirement for an AQ is 7 members in the conference.  Good! Win the conference and you can go to the playoffs.  Otherwise, time to go back to the books.

Continue with the Pool B bids for the independents as determined by the access ratio, and we have given a fair access to all schools to compete.

In fact, eliminating the Pool C in basketball would allow another (twenty conferences at 7 members per conference = ) 140 colleges to join the division without denying basic access to the playoffs.  The players on the 20 teams that would have earned Pool C bids can now use that extra week for another activity on the campus.

As for the financial aide question, I wish that your (Johnnie Esq's) "bell shaped" curve graph from about 2 years ago were still on this message board.  I took exactly the opposite interpretation from the financial aid statement.  We have seen no names of the flagrant offenders that have not responded to educational remediation.   What is more, I have not seen any comments by the presidents or by the Student Athlete Advisory Committee about those schools who were found statistically to discriminate against student-athletes by underfunding their aid packages.  Why not give the flagrant, ineducable outliers the "death penalty" or "kick the out"?  If education is not working, then I get the impression that we have too many schools in the division who wish to be here.  Evict those that flaunt the rules!

Thanks for the posts, Johnnie!  +1 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 13, 2008, 02:51:49 PM
Quote"Each of the measures, however, contained two flaws. First, they would have resulted in institutions being assigned to one category or another, thus denying the basic concept of self-determination. Second, they would do little to address the basic differences in perspective on the role of athletics in the academy that has provided much of the impetus for these discussions." -- Dr Dan Curran

Let me expand my comments about the "specious" seeking of input.

The "secession" proponents must not have been able to achieve the critical mass of 150 schools necessary to have a successful division because the self-determination showed that too few schools wanted to join.

Restated, the "secession proponents" found too few schools of like mind to join "their division" that reflected a vastly different role of "athletics in the academy".  Therefore, they fell back on the previous manipulations and statistical models performed on the data.

(Errata -- "performed" not "preformed".  That was one that was not caught by Mozilla Firefox.  Drat!  Dyslexic fingers!   >:(  )
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 13, 2008, 03:52:29 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 13, 2008, 02:51:49 PM
Quote"Each of the measures, however, contained two flaws. First, they would have resulted in institutions being assigned to one category or another, thus denying the basic concept of self-determination. Second, they would do little to address the basic differences in perspective on the role of athletics in the academy that has provided much of the impetus for these discussions." -- Dr Dan Curran

Let me expand my comments about the "specious" seeking of input.

The "secession" proponents must not have been able to achieve the critical mass of 150 schools necessary to have a successful division because the self-determination showed that too few schools wanted to join.

Restated, the "secession proponents" found too few schools of like mind to join "their division" that reflected a vastly different role of "athletics in the academy".  Therefore, they fell back on the previous manipulations and statistical models preformed on the data.
[/b]

My favorite sweatshirt (I'm wearing it as I type, and always wore it to stat finals): "When all else fails, manipulate the data."  [Some of us, however, see it as a joke, not a prescription for life.]
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 13, 2008, 04:26:18 PM
Ralph (or anyone):

What on earth is "success control"?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 13, 2008, 05:21:04 PM
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. The most effective and efficient way for a college to deal with another college which behaves in an inappropriate manner is, by unilateral Presidential action, to take the misbehaving college off the first college's schedule. One does not need organizations, conventions, committees, subcommittees, speeches, position papers, other means of arguing with and convincing others, votes, concerted sanctions or other political trappings to do that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on January 13, 2008, 08:15:56 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 09, 2008, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: roocru on January 09, 2008, 02:59:29 PM
3)  While it is admiitedly a small sample (10-12), every coach I spoke to was not in favor of the D4 model.

I'm not by any means well-connected, but I do pay as close attention as I can to what goes on around me here in NCAC-land, where "D4" fever is perhaps at its highest.  And I have yet to meet a coach who I would describe as being in favor of a "D4" landscape.  In fact, I have heard from reliable sources that some coaches in the NCAC will leave if their schools go "D4." 

I think that's not unexpected.  Coaches are, after all, coaches.  But coaches are not driving this bus.

Coaches may not have been driving the bus, but it appears the ones I spoke to had an inside line to those who were.   ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 13, 2008, 10:33:14 PM
RT, I always enjoy your perspectives, especially on this issue.  I think our discussion on this board may be the most comprehensive on this issue pretty much anywhere on the internet.

But I have to wonder a bit given the tone recently: aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here? 

No schools have yet joined because there is nothing to join.  Sure, there is the movement, but keep in mind the movement is essentially advocating that D-IV be what D-III currently is from a rules-operation standpoint.  In that vein, why join now, when the whole situation is still up in the air?  There is no "critical mass" by definition-- at least, not yet-- so it seems like we're jumping the gun a bit.

Let's keep in mind that some of the D-IV proposals out there were based upon factors such as size of student body or public/private.  This type of distinction would take away one of the initial principles of NCAA classification which allowed for schools to choose what division they wanted to be a part of.  While some of this was eroded with D1-AA and the D3 reform movement (why RIT can't offer scholarships in D1 hockey), D-III alone cannot completely eliminate that principal on its own-- it has to be allowed by the association.

As I said from the beginning, even the movement needs the entire association's support since this is an association problem.  It seems to be becoming conventional wisdom that D3's current membership situation is untenable, and unless the entire association gets on board, D3 is left to deal with it on its own.  Either way, it has to be dealt with.  If D-IV isn't the right way, it will likely come out in the next few days or in the surveys in the next few months.  But let's not let our bias either for or against get ahead of ourselves on the D-IV issue.

As a side note, I think there seems to be a misunderstanding as to the movement's leaders.  I don't see this group-- given their success in the Director's Cup-- as anti-athletics (i.e. Swarthmore), but rather, they don't want athletics to devour the campus.  I used the example of St. John's and Macalester a few pages back, and I again offer that to exemplify the distinction between the movement's supporters and what the movement is concerned about.  And I say this even as an SJU alum-- I respect it and actually appreciate the movement's desires here.   Going to football games at SJU 15 years ago was drastically different than now-- and while SJU may draw more to their games now, it has come at an unfortunate cost.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 13, 2008, 10:42:02 PM
Quote from: frank uible on January 13, 2008, 05:21:04 PM
I've said it before, but I'll say it again. The most effective and efficient way for a college to deal with another college which behaves in an inappropriate manner is, by unilateral Presidential action, to take the misbehaving college off the first college's schedule. One does not need organizations, conventions, committees, subcommittees, speeches, position papers, other means of arguing with and convincing others, votes, concerted sanctions or other political trappings to do that.

Frank, while I agree with you, if a fellow conference member is the one who is "misbehaving", it will be difficult to not schedule them.

I found my post on that bell curve.  If you want to refresh your memory, you can find it here (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.msg512685#msg512685).

In doing a bit of looking back to find that bell curve, I ran across an article in the NCAA news from about a year ago that seems to side with your concern.   Division III's legislative concern - Too many rules/ Members complain of 'overregulation'   (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Division+III/Division+III%27s+legislative+concern+-+Too+many+rules+-+03-26-07+NCAA+News?pageDesign=Printer+Friendly+NCAA+News+And+Updates) 

This article also ties in to the D-IV debate as it seems to introduce the whole current ordeal:  while all members of the current D-III support the philosophy of D-III, the movement members favor more rules and regulations to enforce the philosophy, while the opposition seems to indicate they prefer more self-policing mechanisms.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 13, 2008, 11:40:14 PM
If a conference won't permit one of its member colleges to remove another member college from the schedule, and if the first college has the courage of its convictions, then it can either (a) withdraw from the conference or (b) merely refuse to appear for its athletic contests with the offensive college. In my view a college should not permit a conference to interfere significantly with the conduct of the college's business.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 13, 2008, 11:57:07 PM
Johnnie, thank you for the 2 posts.  (You currently have a karma of +555 for 2555 posts!   :D )

My bad on not being able to find the histogram!  (I must admit that my brain was not recalling the term histogram, easily on demand...80 terabyte brain, 80286 processor.  :-\)

Maybe our dealing with these issues on the message boards is mirroring the thought processes of the college presidents in parallel.

Also, no one has linked us to the debate occurring in other venues, especially D-1.  So, we are still in the same predicament.

While I try to be precise in what I say and write, I also do not tolerate "bureaucratese" when one is trying to hide motives.

We do have one problem in the ASC.  Sul Ross State University is a charter member of the ASC, founded in 1996 and its NAIA antecedent conference, the Texas Intercollegiate Athletic Association, founded in 1976.  They are a state school that is 325 miles west of its nearest opponents, and only has about 1500 students.  Transportation and isolation are a real drawback.  They are not a real problem.  However, UT-Tyler and UT-Dallas, formerly upper level universities that competed minimally in the NAIA, are now expanding their campuses and opening as 4-year institutions.  They have access to the University of Texas monies (beaucoup billions), new facilities, a dirt cheap in-state tuition ($5200 per year at UT-Tyler; $8060 per year at UT-Dallas) and proximity to large population centers that have historically fed ASC member institutions.  The question that will arise is whether they are peer institutions to the small private (faith-based) liberal arts schools that are 12 of the 15 institutions in the ASC.

I think that your comment about the "movement" reflects that inertia is overwhelming in this one.  The simple change to the access ratio and Pool C bids will help in some of the scheduling problems.

However, IMHO, I believe that some of the underlying dynamics to some in the "movement" is an irritating attitude of officiousness.

Thanks to all for the comments on this topic.   :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 14, 2008, 07:56:11 AM
Quote from: frank uible on January 13, 2008, 11:40:14 PM
In my view a college should not permit a conference to interfere significantly with the conduct of the college's business.

I agree with that statement 100%!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 14, 2008, 12:15:34 PM
wilburt: Bring back Neil Craig!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 15, 2008, 11:10:32 AM
RT-- I understand that interesting in-conference issue.  We've been dealing with that here in the upper midwest with the MIAC/IIAC/MWC versus the WIAC; specifically, the MWC/WIAC and the MIAC/WIAC.  The MWC has a good number of its schools in Wisconsin competing directly against the lower tuition WIAC for students; the MIAC schools tend to draw a great number of students from Western Wisconsin, and the WIAC schools tend to draw a good number of students from the Twin Cities.  While the MIAC has five members in the Twin Cities (6 with all-girl St. Kate's), the WIAC has three schools within one hour from the Twin Cities (which is approximately the distance of four more MIAC schools from the Twin Cities), and another 2-3 WIAC schools are closer than Moorhead is from the Twin Cities.  So that issue is not lost on me, and fixing it has been difficult.  At least here there is a separate conference, so there are no in-conference problems like the ASC seems to have, but given their proximity, and the relative distance of other D-III institutions, non-conference games tend to require greater traveling than it should be.

As an update at the Convention, the NCAA approved permitting institutions to provide academic or other support services specifically for student-athletes (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g38nYBSYGYxqb6kWhCjggRb31fj_zcVP0A_YLc0IhyR0VFAABTEJw!/delta/base64xml/L0lDU0lKQ1RPN29na21BISEvb0VvUUFBSVFnakZJQUFRaENFSVFqR0VBLzRKRmlDbzBlaDFpY29uUVZHaGQtc0lRIS83XzBfNVVWLzMxMjMzNQ!!?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_0_5UV_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/Division+III+approves+similar+but+separate+student-athlete+services+-+01-14-08+NCAA+News) so long as they are comparable to services provided for nonathletes. This separate but equal vote was initially a tie, but was later approved by approximately 50 votes.  I would like to see the voting breakdown to see who was in favor and who was opposed on this issue.

The conference discussion is a good one.  Remember that the original purpose of conferences was for convenience and guarantee of scheduling for its members.  In order to ensure games were on as level a playing field as possible (instead of permitting the local athletic director to hire his own officials, for example), the conferences would take on certain  minimal rules to ensure that the members were all operating under the same circumstances.  The concept of conference champion is an outgrowth of this scheduling arrangement.  But it seems that some are proposing it backwards-- if a school doesn't like what the conference is doing, it should be on the school's initiative to leave the conference and take on all the risks that entails.  Conferences don't take unilateral action-- they are member-run, and the members dictate the rules.

Because the financial aid entails such an enormous amount of data, and is so individually and context dependent, the sample size and administrative costs are likely not justified by a conference to conduct its own financial aid investigation and penalties.  Thus, conferences and members have asked the NCAA to do it for them.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 15, 2008, 12:48:55 PM
And also in the process are foolishly asking scores-upon-scores of institutions to reach agreement on an outcome rather than merely 6 or 8 or 10 or 12.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 15, 2008, 01:17:23 PM
Quote from: frank uible on January 15, 2008, 12:48:55 PM
And also in the process are foolishly asking scores-upon-scores of institutions to reach agreement on an outcome rather than merely 6 or 8 or 10 or 12.

Hence the reason for the D-IV discussion.  Smaller = more manageable.

The joy of D-III is that no two colleges are the same.  But inside a conference that means that, while these two schools may share geographic proximity to one another, they may market to an entirely different demographic group.  As a result, it becomes a difficult proposition to parse through all the data to tell who is cheating and who is not, especially when you have a sample size of 8-10 to compare off of. 

As found through that bell curve I posted, 30% of D-III schools gave more to athletes than nonathletes.  About 10% gave 5% more to athletes than nonathletes.  That means approximately 3 members of each conference need to be more closely examined, of which one has more than a 5% variation in is funding to athletes and nonathletes.    And we are scratching the surface just with those numbers.  Does it seem odd that some schools offer 55% less aid to athletes than nonathletes?  Perhaps there is a demographic reason for this. Who do you propose conduct these investigations?

It is a nice goal for self policing, but athletics has turned into a major money maker for schools-- both through alumni involvement and student recruitment.  As the number of college-bound males (where the money is) continues to decrease demographically, that competition is only going to get more intense.  So what is the check to ensure nobody is skirting these rules? 

I am all for less governance here-- when the NCAA starts legislating that "there must be a person certified in first aid, CPR, and an AED device at all contests", that seems to be a bit overkill and I would agree with you (which was wisely voted down in the convention).  But the non-scholarship principle is a foundational bedrock of D-III, so installing the first (and only!) check on this principle I don't see as overstepping its legislative powers.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 15, 2008, 05:03:48 PM
Why have any "rules" with respect to financial aid? A college doesn't need rules to determine its schedule. Each college should schedule only those colleges which it knows and of which it doesn't sufficiently disapprove as opponents from a financial aid standpoint. To do otherwise with or without rules is to lie down with dogs and then complain about the fleas. Why go to the great effort and considerable expense to construct and try to administer a Napoleonic Code of Financial Aid requiring the great difficulty of gaining the continuing concurrence of way too many colleges?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 15, 2008, 05:54:28 PM
Quote from: frank uible on January 15, 2008, 05:03:48 PM
Why have any "rules" with respect to financial aid? A college doesn't need rules to determine its schedule. Each college should schedule only those colleges which it knows and of which it doesn't sufficiently disapprove as opponents from a financial aid standpoint. To do otherwise with or without rules is to lie down with dogs and then complain about the fleas. Why go to the great effort and considerable expense to construct and try to administer a Napoleonic Code of Financial Aid requiring the great difficulty of gaining the continuing concurrence of way too many colleges?

That is a good point.

But you tell me who the champion of the OAC is if, for sake of argument, Capital refuses to play Mount Union because they think Mount Union offers too much financial aid to athletes, and further refuses to play Ohio Northern because they think they use too much practice time.  Then, Mount Union won't play  John Carroll because JC allows medical redshirts.  So all four teams end up undefeated, as they fill their schedules with other NAIA and D-III patsies.  Who gets the OAC autobid? Who should get it?  That is life without "strong" conferences.  It wasn't so long ago that was the case-- the Big 10 did that up until the 1960s, even.

I am pleased the NCAA has started to look at financial aid-- not to say their manner is yet appropriate, but it is a start.  The "rumor mill" of so-and-so getting an offer from such school after another school offered a lesser amount, and oh by the way, so-and-so happens to play football, was getting a little too loud for comfort.  Since the only check on this was the honor system in the past, something more formal seems proper.

Your method puts a lot of responsibilities on each school themselves.  I don't disagree with that analysis, but I think it encourages less experimentation and fewer diversity within the division (if Bethel doesn't "trust" Northwestern (Roseville), they will not play them-- therefore, no games between the two, even though they are down the street from one another-- meaning, even though they are both D3 schools, until some objective standard is met, they remain cold neighbors).   

The financial aid program is not one that has been controversial or had major opposition to it-- and the opposition that does exist tends to be on concerns of the costs of data collection inside of the schools themselves, not on the NCAA's parsing of the data.  But isn't that concern restating the hypothesis?  Shouldn't a school be checking itself anyway that it isn't unwittingly giving more aid to athletes?  And if so, shouldn't this expense be expected as part of this process?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 15, 2008, 06:27:24 PM
Beyond "who would get the OAC autobid", how long would there be anything to 'autobid' to if other schools began thinking that MUC was playing by OSU rules?  (Not tho pick on MUC; the same point would apply to UWW perceived as UW-Madison, or, for that matter, SJU seen as copying UMinn aid practices.)  Beyond the conference level, there can't long exist a national tourney unless everyone feels the playing field is at least in priciple a level one. 

Or at least as level as feasible - there probably is little or nothing that can (or should) be done about differing admissions standards, tuition levels, endowments, facilities, crowd size and enthusiasm, etc. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 15, 2008, 07:03:14 PM
johnnie_esq:

It ought not be a secret that many of the "rumors" you cite have a basis in fact. There are, indeed, some D3 venues "buying" athletes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 15, 2008, 09:42:31 PM
If the very unlikely case cited should occur, then flip a coin to determine the conference champion. Don't let the tail comprised of deciding a conference champion wag the dog comprised of the educational mission of the college.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 16, 2008, 02:11:05 AM
Quote from: joehakes on January 05, 2008, 04:40:05 PMThe recruiting dis-advantage is there if you allow it to be.  Non-athletic scholarship competition should not be presented as a lesser experience.  The long term values that are embedded in the DIII experience (when properly done) should be a selling point.

This strikes me as being a little naive, Joe. Yes, we D3ers fervently believe in the virtues offered within the D3 student-athlete experience, but we are a tiny minority within American sports culture. What Q said last week about AAU programs, high school coaching resumes, and the jockeying of sub-D1 scholarship programs is very real -- and even more real is the stigma attached to D3 athletics among the masses who follow college football and college basketball. It's an unfair stigma that arises out of ignorance, of course, but it's a stigma nevertheless, and we would do well to take into consideration the concerns of those who have to recruit in an environment in which good high school players look down their noses at D3 competition because it's seen by and large as being nothing more than intramurals with fancy uniforms.

I've talked to lots of CCIW coaches, administrators, and student-athletes about the uphill battle involved in trying to overcome this stigma in the recruiting game. I don't think that I'm going out on a limb in saying that an affiliation shift from D3 to D4 would make a bad situation worse in terms of recruiting the caliber of student-athlete who traditionally has excelled in the CCIW.

I've found that the most enthusiastic adherents of the D3 student-athlete experience are those who are at the back end of that experience (upperclassmen and alumni), and that their enthusiasm is a magnitude of ten higher than that of those at the front end of the experience (high school athletes being recruited by a D3 school or schools). Yes, obviously some very good athletes are being sold on the virtues of an Augustana or a Wheaton or a North Central, whether it be from a wholistic student experience standpoint, a this-school-would-look-good-on-your-resume standpoint, or from observation on a campus visit that the competitive level is actually much higher than they had thought it would be. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this type of kid is anything approaching typical. The typical kid thinks that you're not really a bona-fide college athlete unless you sign a letter of intent and are awarded a scholie. D1 walk-ons are joke fodder, curiosities, and the subject of implausibly heroic Rudy tales. D3 student-athletes aren't even on the radar, which goes hand-in-hand with the fact that their schools, conferences, and their entire division aren't on the popular radar, either.

The recruiting disadvantage is already there for D3. It would be significantly worse for D4, and not because anyone would "allow it to be" -- rather, because in popular perception an already weak level of competition has been exchanged for one that's even weaker. The collective voice of us D3 enthusiasts simply isn't strong enough to drown out the cultural bias in this case.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 16, 2008, 07:35:39 AM
Quote from: frank uible on January 14, 2008, 12:15:34 PM
wilburt: Bring back Neil Craig!

I wish I could.

Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 15, 2008, 07:03:14 PM
johnnie_esq:

It ought not be a secret that many of the "rumors" you cite have a basis in fact. There are, indeed, some D3 venues "buying" athletes.

Just as many D3 schools are "buying" or attempting to "buy" the limited number of 4.0 GPA students (non-athletes) and 36 ACT scores with outrageous "academic" scholarship offers.  We should not be a surprised that the same would hold true for athletes. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 16, 2008, 11:51:02 AM
Quote from: wilburt on January 16, 2008, 07:35:39 AM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 15, 2008, 07:03:14 PM
johnnie_esq:

It ought not be a secret that many of the "rumors" you cite have a basis in fact. There are, indeed, some D3 venues "buying" athletes.

Just as many D3 schools are "buying" or attempting to "buy" the limited number of 4.0 GPA students (non-athletes) and 36 ACT scores with outrageous "academic" scholarship offers.  We should not be a surprised that the same would hold true for athletes. 

With the possible exception of Ohio State ;), colleges and universities are primarily in the business of academics (teaching and research), and thus the intense competition for the best available raw materials (students) is to be expected and perhaps applauded.  (It's for another day and another venue to argue whether colleges should cater to the academic elite.)  If a school goes to that much trouble and expense to acquire and maintain the raw material of sports, it raises a question of where that school's priorities lay, and whether they are misplaced.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 16, 2008, 12:02:08 PM
Bingo, David.  +1. 

The primary job of a college is to EDUCATE.  And in Division III, even moreso. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 16, 2008, 12:12:58 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 16, 2008, 12:02:08 PM
Bingo, David.  +1. 

The primary job of a college is to EDUCATE.  And in Division III, even moreso. 

Agreed.  The primary purpose SHOULD be education. 

But for many schools not named Harvard/Yale/Stanford, athletics bring in alumni dollars and draw students (there were some numbers awhile back regarding male enrollment at schools with a football team and those without-- and there is quite a disparity between the two). 

As an SJU alum, while I have to admit the recent athletic successes have been nice, it feels at times that the school has focused much of its development dollars on athletic endeavors instead of academic ventures because dollars flow back relatively quickly and tangibly in return for investment in the former.  Thus, it appears that the tail is unfortunately wagging the dog.  The scary thing is that it appears SJU is not alone in doing this. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 16, 2008, 02:02:36 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on January 16, 2008, 12:12:58 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 16, 2008, 12:02:08 PM
Bingo, David.  +1. 

The primary job of a college is to EDUCATE.  And in Division III, even moreso. 

Agreed.  The primary purpose SHOULD be education. 

But for many schools not named Harvard/Yale/Stanford, athletics bring in alumni dollars and draw students (there were some numbers awhile back regarding male enrollment at schools with a football team and those without-- and there is quite a disparity between the two). 

As an SJU alum, while I have to admit the recent athletic successes have been nice, it feels at times that the school has focused much of its development dollars on athletic endeavors instead of academic ventures because dollars flow back relatively quickly and tangibly in return for investment in the former.  Thus, it appears that the tail is unfortunately wagging the dog.  The scary thing is that it appears SJU is not alone in doing this. 
And yet, as I stated in the "McMurry case study (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.1145)", every one of the 19 athletic programs that we offer contributes to the university's "bottom line".
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 16, 2008, 02:48:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 16, 2008, 02:02:36 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on January 16, 2008, 12:12:58 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 16, 2008, 12:02:08 PM
Bingo, David.  +1. 

The primary job of a college is to EDUCATE.  And in Division III, even moreso. 

Agreed.  The primary purpose SHOULD be education. 

But for many schools not named Harvard/Yale/Stanford, athletics bring in alumni dollars and draw students (there were some numbers awhile back regarding male enrollment at schools with a football team and those without-- and there is quite a disparity between the two). 

As an SJU alum, while I have to admit the recent athletic successes have been nice, it feels at times that the school has focused much of its development dollars on athletic endeavors instead of academic ventures because dollars flow back relatively quickly and tangibly in return for investment in the former.  Thus, it appears that the tail is unfortunately wagging the dog.  The scary thing is that it appears SJU is not alone in doing this. 
And yet, as I stated in the "McMurry case study (http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.1145)", every one of the 19 athletic programs that we offer contributes to the university's "bottom line".

I'm not suggesting that sports are bad or do not contribute to the academic mission of a college; in fact, I feel quite strongly the opposite.  I've said before that my biggest regret in life is that I didn't participate in sports in school; I'm quite certain that I'd be a different and much better person if I had.  As for quantifying how sports enriches the school, however, there are probably as many different answers to this as there are schools.  Some, like Antioch, eschew intercollegiate sports altogether, while others, perhaps like Ohio State or Miami (FL), segregate sports (and athletes) almost completely from academics, treating the sports as an entity unto itself, like a minor professional league of sorts.

My personal feeling is that the attribution of enhanced enrollment and/or finances of the university as a whole due to sports is usually a false accounting.  Schools like to make the point that high-profile sports helps in name recognition and helps attract enrollment, especially among boys.  I suspect that's how the McMurry panel determined that each sport contributes financially: the tuition paid by the athletes, who might otherwise have gone elsewhere, more than offsets the costs of the program.  But, even assuming that's a correct premise (that they'd have gone elsewhere), is that really the appropriate way to recriut students?  If you're recruiting students because they can and want to play football, then you're recruiting football players, who might or might not also want to be students.  Now, if your goal is a well-rounded first-year class, one that has matriculants of all varieties who collectively represent the rich panoply of life, that's great, I find that admirable, provided you work just as hard to enroll musicians and foreign students and mathematicians and nudists and anarchists and atheists.  But if your goal is to enrich your academics (or, more cynically, to improve your incoming GPA/SAT scores to impress US News), then recruiting football players starts to look like a play for tuition, and if your goal is merely to increase enrollment (and/or tuition), then why not target students who don't engage in high-cost activities like sports?

We went through this at Tulane while I was there.  They were (ostensibly) trying to decide whether to remain D1, especially for football, or to "downgrade" the athletics programs.  The decision was to remain D1, and the benefits enumerated to justify the decision were that D1 sports improved worldwide name recognition which in turn improved both enrollment and diversity.  But it's always seemed to me that they could have achieved these goals by focusing on these areas of recruitment without focusing on football, and probably spent a heck of a lot less money doing so.  (And an effort to return Tulane to the academic stature it enjoyed 50 years ago would do more for worldwide name recognition than the football team could ever hope to achieve.)  Claiming they are improving academics by recruiting based on football seems specious to me, and that's being kind.

Now, I have nothing against football players, and many of them--especially at the D3 level--are also excellent scholars who can and do contribute to the scholarship of the university.  But some aren't, just like some scholars don't contribute to the football team's success.  Unless your goal is football success, recruiting football players because they play football will only result in achieving your goal (whateve it may be) by happy accident.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on January 16, 2008, 03:15:15 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on January 16, 2008, 12:12:58 PM
Agreed.  The primary purpose SHOULD be education. 

But for many schools not named Harvard/Yale/Stanford, athletics bring in alumni dollars and draw students (there were some numbers awhile back regarding male enrollment at schools with a football team and those without-- and there is quite a disparity between the two). 

As an SJU alum, while I have to admit the recent athletic successes have been nice, it feels at times that the school has focused much of its development dollars on athletic endeavors instead of academic ventures because dollars flow back relatively quickly and tangibly in return for investment in the former.  Thus, it appears that the tail is unfortunately wagging the dog.  The scary thing is that it appears SJU is not alone in doing this. 

johnnie, I would agree that the primary purpose is education, but school administrators also have a responsibility to make sure the school is financially viable, and athletics certainly helps that bottom line at the Division III level.

I won't go into the different areas that athletics benefits a university, I am sure those have been expounded on here ad nauseum, but I personally think they are numerous and valid. At the very least athletics brings in hundreds of student-athletics who otherwise would not be enrolled, choosing rather to find another quality education that allows them to compete.

In Division III, student-athletes usually make up a very large percentage of the on-campus population and tuition costs for those students go a long way to fund both athletics and academics. In my opinion, athletics provides a great opportunity to publicize the academic record of the school, and that platform is often much larger for successful athletic departments such as SJU. I would never have known about the school had it not been for the football program.

As long as athletics operates within the rules of the NCAA, I don't see why we necessarily have to choose to be successful in either academics or athletics, both can be beneficial to the other.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 16, 2008, 03:44:37 PM
David Collinge, thank you for stating your experience and understanding the point I was trying to get at-- only your experience and breadth on the topic is far more comprehensive than mine!

Don't get me wrong-- I am in no way a Swarthmorian who believes athletics detracts from the academic mission of the school; rather, I agree that athletics is a net positive to the academic curriculum.  The competitive aspect combined with teamwork and discipline is a viable and important quality that should be encouraged, especially from a student development standpoint.

My concern is that schools are moving beyond the student development aspect into institution development-- and thus elevating themselves beyond their core purpose.  I think it is great that SJU has 200 people on their football team because it allows 200 people to share in the educational component.  I think it is sickening that SJU has touchdown drives sponsored by Orville Redenbacher's Popcorn and "Red" sponsored by Target Corporation, since their connection to the school is geared toward moneymaking and non-academic pursuits.  While some schools may be doing this right-- using that athletic revenue to pay for academic pursuits (e.g. the "Notre Dame way"), I fear this method has been "MBA-ified": development officers eager to show a short-term profit to justify their existence at a long-term expense of the institution.  The expense:  the educational emphasis of the institution.

Maybe I am a bit idealist, but I would rather see a Rhodes Scholar winner from SJU than a Gagliardi Trophy winner.  But a school's emphasis on football/basketball/insert sport here, if that emphasis is not carried across to the academic arena as Mr. Collinge suggests, will be bound to yield more of the latter than the former.

In essence, this debate is part of what the D-III/D-IV conflict is all about: schools that wish to use athletics as a development tool for the school versus schools where athletics is a mere development tool for the student. That's why this debate will be personal and a difficult one, since no college president would openly like to admit they are in the former category.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 16, 2008, 04:14:10 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on January 16, 2008, 03:44:37 PM
David Collinge, thank you for stating your experience and understanding the point I was trying to get at-- only your experience and breadth on the topic is far more comprehensive than mine!
I doubt that; and if it should be true, it just makes your already first-rate posting on this topic that much more impressive.

Quote from: johnnie_esq on January 16, 2008, 03:44:37 PMMaybe I am a bit idealist, but I would rather see a Rhodes Scholar winner from SJU than a Gagliardi Trophy winner.
I like to pretend that SJU and my school (Wooster) and many others would celebrate a Rhodes Scholarship more prominently than a Gagliardi Trophy, but that may be a fantasy.  What is not a fantasy, however, and I think is beyond argument, is that a Rhodes Scholarship will serve the student for his/her entire life, while after a few years of having the Gagliardi Trophy collecting dust on the mantle, the winner probably tires of explaining what it was awarded for.  (And I'm naive enough to buy into the academic and service components of that award, making it more 'honorable' than, say, the Heisman Trophy.)

Quote from: Chris Brooks on January 16, 2008, 03:15:15 PM
johnnie, I would agree that the primary purpose is education, but school administrators also have a responsibility to make sure the school is financially viable, and athletics certainly helps that bottom line at the Division III level.
While I agree with the first two clauses of your statement, I don't necessarily agree with the third.  That accounting depends on this assumption:
Quote from: Chris Brooks on January 16, 2008, 03:15:15 PMAt the very least athletics brings in hundreds of student-athletics who otherwise would not be enrolled, choosing rather to find another quality education that allows them to compete.
But if this is just a numbers game, a way to attract a larger number of matriculants (mostly boys), wouldn't it be as effective and much cheaper to, say, offer free beer or no classes before 10am or all classes taught by topless female TAs?  (Can you tell I'm reminiscing about my own college career here? ;))  I realize I'm exaggerating to make a point here, but that point remains: if you recruit athletes, you'd better have athletics as a goal.  If the goal is academic, then you're mis-aiming your recruiting; and if the goal is financial, then there are cheaper (i.e. better) ways to achieve it.  Luckily (or perhaps sadly), I think most administrators understand this, and when they emphasize sports, it's because they want to succeed at sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 16, 2008, 05:30:57 PM
As for scholarship among student-athletes, McMurry had a baseball player who received an NCAA post-graduate scholarship in about 2003 and this year, we have 2 strong candidates for post-graduate scholarships, including Tarra Richardson, the  strong candidate for the Jostens (Pre-season All-American and 3.90+ GPA Finance major).  We might have another student-athlete earn an NCAA post-graduate scholarship as well.

McMurry has a large number of student-athletes that want to coach and teach.  McMurry is known in Texas for having a very high percentage of graduates who are still in education 10 years after graduation from college.  Those "future coaches" are likely to matriculate as football and volleyball players, etc. 

We also have a large number of first generation student-athletes and students.  (The men's basketball coach counted 7 of 16 players as being first generation college-students!  That is a tremendous statement affirming our goals as an institution!)  Athletics is the entry point for these student-athletes.

Getting the student-athlete to accept when their athletic careers are over is one topic that we don't discuss much on these boards, but that aspect of the relationships that a student develops on the campus is part of the maturing process.  This process of accepting the extent of the athletic career happens more frequently at D-III than D-II or D-I

We at McMurry are not as glamorous as many of the other schools in D-III.  However, I love the student-athletes that I meet.  They are genuine, "salt-of-the-earth", "core of America-type" people.  I see humble greatness in them.  Do you recall the interviews with the real "Band of Brothers"?  Those men were so simple and so humble, until you realize what they did.  I find those same attributes awaiting to be developed by the faculty and coaches at McMurry.

That is why I believe in D-III.  As Augie Garrido, head baseball coach at Cal State Fullerton and now UT-Austin said,

QuoteIn professional baseball, the people are used for the betterment of the sport. In college, the game is used for the betterment of the people.

If Coach Garrido can say that about D-1, how much more applicable is it in D-III?


(For me, it happened after the cross-country season of my first year at McMurry.  I was a walk-on to the track team that was NAIA-1 and had "athletic scholarship" athletes.  My first time trial of the late fall was only 4 seconds off my PR in the mile and I finished ahead of one of the "athletic scholarship" milers.  I was pumped.  However, injuries and awkward work-out times had as much to do with the decision to quit as my re-assessing "how much of which ends of the candle I wanted to burn" as anything!  However, I am grateful that I wore the maroon and white.  Besides, the picture of my cross country team at my medical school still hangs in the Student Center.  We ran against high schools, jucos, NAIA's, a D-III and even beat TCU that year.   ;) )

 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on January 16, 2008, 10:53:52 PM
johnnie, I think you are right in saying that the discussion on this board and the differing viewpoints expressed are obviously at the crux of the current Division III debate.  That is why Division IV or some other model has become a near reality. It is also obvious that the role of athletics is a very sensitive issue to many and nothing expressed here would change an opinion, but I personally would disagree with some here.

Quote from: David Collinge on January 16, 2008, 04:14:10 PM
What is not a fantasy, however, and I think is beyond argument, is that a Rhodes Scholarship will serve the student for his/her entire life, while after a few years of having the Gagliardi Trophy collecting dust on the mantle, the winner probably tires of explaining what it was awarded for. 

I don't know if I would go that far to belittle the accomplishments achieved by student-athletes in athletic endeavors or previous Gagliardi Trophy winners. I would imagine the years of dedication, hard work and competition that went into winning the award would serve that particular student well in life. I have heard many student-athletes, who found success academically and athletically, talk about the life lessons learned from athletics being a foundation for future success.

Quote from: David Collinge on January 16, 2008, 04:14:10 PM
But if this is just a numbers game, a way to attract a larger number of matriculants (mostly boys), wouldn't it be as effective and much cheaper to, say, offer free beer or no classes before 10am or all classes taught by topless female TAs?  (Can you tell I'm reminiscing about my own college career here? ;)) 

That might be true if athletics were just a numbers game, but athletics serves so many other purposes well beyond that. I know many will not agree with this, but athletics is an important part of the educational experience for many college students and in many cases teaches lessons not learned in the classroom.

Quote from: johnnie_esq on January 16, 2008, 03:44:37 PM
I think it is sickening that SJU has touchdown drives sponsored by Orville Redenbacher's Popcorn and "Red" sponsored by Target Corporation, since their connection to the school is geared toward moneymaking and non-academic pursuits.  While some schools may be doing this right-- using that athletic revenue to pay for academic pursuits (e.g. the "Notre Dame way"), I fear this method has been "MBA-ified": development officers eager to show a short-term profit to justify their existence at a long-term expense of the institution.  The expense:  the educational emphasis of the institution.

I don't know how money raised through athletics detracts at all from the academic mission of the institution. Obviously there is a lot of interest in SJU football due to their success, which is valuable to the university and their ability to recruit students. As I mentioned before, I would never have heard of SJU had it not been for their football team.

There are many aspects of the college experience for a student that are non-academic pursuits, so that is not solely attributable to athletics. While academics is the primary purpose of a university, there can be other other pursuits non-academic in nature that enhance the educational experience. The usual arguments that athletics rallies alumni and is a source of pride for the institution are valid in my opinion. But the relationships built between players and coaches are lifelong and in many instances spiritual in nature. Again, a non-academic pursuit but at the same time life-changing and of the utmost importance.

I can see both sides of the argument, but I obviously think athletics is a vital function of the university and does nothing to diminish the importance of academics. Striving for sucess in each is not a bad thing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 17, 2008, 12:01:06 AM
Great points, Chris-- I actually don't think we're as far apart as it may seem in our views.

I think it is a matter of line-drawing and on what side of that arbitrary line schools will fall.  It's not as though athletics are bad-- its that over-emphasis upon athletics is.  Sure, you know about SJU because of its football team, but what do you know about it other than its football team?  It's not as though the origins of Vatican II or the Monastic Manuscript Library or the St. John's Bible get carried across through having a good football team.  And if the average person isn't catching that knowledge, are prospective students getting that message?  If not, why are they matriculating then? To be sure, I wouldn't have a problem if football revenues went toward scholarships for the student body or to fund academic programs.  But from what I understand, that isn't where that revenue is headed.

I think it is possible to be a top notch athletic program and academic program, and I would be ecstatic if my school were able to accomplish that.  However, it takes a certain mentality to do it-- one which meshes a very focused academic program without overyielding to the athletic department's demands for more resources.  I don't see a lot of schools exercising this discipline.  To be sure, there are some-- schools like Carleton are a good example in the MIAC-- but I see those in the minority, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on January 17, 2008, 12:33:21 AM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on January 17, 2008, 12:01:06 AM
Great points, Chris-- I actually don't think we're as far apart as it may seem in our views.

johnnie, I think you're right about our views probably not too far apart. It is really difficult to convey actual opinions on message boards without typing out an essay, and on the flipside very easy to offend someone unintentionally.

Quote from: johnnie_esq on January 17, 2008, 12:01:06 AM
I think it is a matter of line-drawing and on what side of that arbitrary line schools will fall.  It's not as though athletics are bad-- its that over-emphasis upon athletics is.  Sure, you know about SJU because of its football team, but what do you know about it other than its football team? 

There's no question it can be taken too far, but I think striving to be successful is a good thing as long as ethics are not compromised. It's funny you ask what I know about SJU other than football because I actually navigated through the website yesterday just out of curiosity. I was interested in publications and  the gameday atmosphere at football games, but ended up researching information about the school.

In regards to the athletics revenue being generated, I don't have any problem with that money being used to improve the athletics department. That money is available to athletics and otherwise would not be of benefit to the university. The success that SJU has experienced in athletics only enhances the revenue available.

I'm just very defensive about the role of athletics and in providing student-athletes the best support possible to be successful. Athletics played a very important role in my personal spiritual development and serves many vital functions on the campus of universities, particularly at schools with denominational affiliation. The relationships student-athletes develop with coaches and staff are usually not duplicated in the classroom setting.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 17, 2008, 11:04:23 AM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on January 16, 2008, 10:53:52 PMI would imagine the years of dedication, hard work and competition that went into winning the [Gagliardi] award would serve that particular student well in life. I have heard many student-athletes, who found success academically and athletically, talk about the life lessons learned from athletics being a foundation for future success. [...] [A]thletics is an important part of the educational experience for many college students and in many cases teaches lessons not learned in the classroom.

Chris, just so you know, I agree completely with every word of this.  As I posted yesterday,
Quote from: David Collinge on January 16, 2008, 02:48:19 PM
I'm not suggesting that sports are bad or do not contribute to the academic mission of a college; in fact, I feel quite strongly the opposite.  I've said before that my biggest regret in life is that I didn't participate in sports in school; I'm quite certain that I'd be a different and much better person if I had. 
I further agree with you that
Quote from: Chris Brooks on January 17, 2008, 12:33:21 AMIt is really difficult to convey actual opinions on message boards without typing out an essay, and on the flipside very easy to offend someone unintentionally.
This is especially true for me, since I find it very difficult to express what I mean verbally, so I tend to fall back on a wisecracking, exaggeration-riddled type of commentary.  I'm sorry if anything I posted offended you, or anyone else. :-\

I think perhaps my point in all of this, which johnnie_esq seems to express much better than I can, is that I'm strongly in favor of having intercollegiate sports on campus, encouraging as many students as possible to participate in them, and giving those students the best chance at success.  But I think there is a point where that a line can be crossed, where the success element can be overemphasized.  To my way of thinking, it is in the participation that of most benefit to the student is accomplished.  In other words, I think colleges should provide and encourage athletic opportunities for students, but am unsettled when it appears that they are instead providing and encouraging academic opportunities for athletes.  That's perhaps a fine distinction, but an important one to me.

It seems that part of the D-4 "movement" is to ensure that student-athletes are not so consumed in one sport that all but the most exceptional are unable effectively to participate in other activities, up to and including academics.  This is, I think, prevalent at the D1 level, and perhaps at D2 in the high-profile sports as well.  At D3, so far at least, I think we do a good job of structuring athletics so that the athletes can be effective students as well (in most cases, even "students first"), but are less successful in ensuring that they have the opportunity to participate in international travel or externships or even glee club and volunteerism.  Or, best of all, all four.  In my limited reading of the proposals, it seems that the D4 proponents want to set limits on athletics so that the student-athletes can be full-fledged members of the campus community, and in turn every full-fledged member of the campus community can particpate in athletics without compromising their other interests and pursuits.  Probably everyone would agree with these goals when expressed that way; the devil as always is in the details, in this case what those limits should be.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on January 17, 2008, 11:41:53 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 17, 2008, 11:04:23 AM
This is especially true for me, since I find it very difficult to express what I mean verbally, so I tend to fall back on a wisecracking, exaggeration-riddled type of commentary.  I'm sorry if anything I posted offended you, or anyone else. :-

David, I didn't think that at all. I know you have an appreciation for the role of athletics in the lives of young people or you would not be so active a participant on these message boards and so interested in Division III athletics.

Quote from: David Collinge on January 17, 2008, 11:04:23 AM
I think perhaps my point in all of this, which johnnie_esq seems to express much better than I can, is that I'm strongly in favor of having intercollegiate sports on campus, encouraging as many students as possible to participate in them, and giving those students the best chance at success.  But I think there is a point where that a line can be crossed, where the success element can be overemphasized. 

I think at the heart of the entire DIII debate on athletics is that we all agree there is a line that can be crossed involving athletics, but we disagree on where that will be. I just hope everyone realizes that this is not an ethical question with one group labeled bad because they either place more emphasis on athletics or less emphasis.

Quote from: David Collinge on January 17, 2008, 11:04:23 AM
It seems that part of the D-4 "movement" is to ensure that student-athletes are not so consumed in one sport that all but the most exceptional are unable effectively to participate in other activities, up to and including academics.  This is, I think, prevalent at the D1 level, and perhaps at D2 in the high-profile sports as well.  At D3, so far at least, I think we do a good job of structuring athletics so that the athletes can be effective students as well (in most cases, even "students first"), but are less successful in ensuring that they have the opportunity to participate in international travel or externships or even glee club and volunteerism.  Or, best of all, all four.  In my limited reading of the proposals, it seems that the D4 proponents want to set limits on athletics so that the student-athletes can be full-fledged members of the campus community, and in turn every full-fledged member of the campus community can particpate in athletics without compromising their other interests and pursuits.  Probably everyone would agree with these goals when expressed that way; the devil as always is in the details, in this case what those limits should be.

I think that is exactly why the potential realignment is much needed. There are obviously some philosophical differences that exist in DIII, which should be expected simply due to the number of schools participating now at that level. But I think it is more important to student-athletes making a decision on where they will attend school. I'm not referring to academics here, but some athletes really don't have an interest in all of the other on-campus activities and are looking for a school where they can just play ball and get an education. Some would be attracted to a place where athletics is less emphasized. The added clarification should aid student-athletes in making their decision.

But I don't think there is a way to avoid an even larger perception problem for those schools who drop to Division IV. Whether it is right or wrong doesn't matter because it will exist, and maybe even should exist to people, or media, who place more emphasis on athletics. And the people who stay in Division III will probably get a small boost just by telling recruits and media that we are members of the division which places more value on the role of athletics.

I can certainly respect the position of institutions wishing to de-emphasize athletics, but I have read some quotes where they do not want the added stigma of dropping down a division.  I just don't see how that can be avoided since they are making a choice to diminish the role of athletics, which is exactly why the perception exists in the first place.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 17, 2008, 12:24:00 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on January 17, 2008, 11:41:53 AM
I just hope everyone realizes that this is not an ethical question with one group labeled bad because they either place more emphasis on athletics or less emphasis.

Good point, but it might depend on the degree of "emphasis" on athletics. "More" emphasis could be to the detriment of athletics -- and then it will be an "ethical question."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on January 17, 2008, 12:37:59 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 17, 2008, 12:24:00 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on January 17, 2008, 11:41:53 AM
I just hope everyone realizes that this is not an ethical question with one group labeled bad because they either place more emphasis on athletics or less emphasis.

Good point, but it might depend on the degree of "emphasis" on athletics. "More" emphasis could be to the detriment of athletics -- and then it will be an "ethical question."

Warren, good point and I should have clarified. It certainly can involve ethical questions, but the "value" of athletics is not an ethical question on its own. Some schools are committed to being successfu in athletics becaue they value its importance to the school more than others. I think it only becomes ethical if departments stray outside the rules of the NCAA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 17, 2008, 12:46:28 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on January 17, 2008, 12:33:21 AM
It's funny you ask what I know about SJU other than football because I actually navigated through the website yesterday just out of curiosity. I was interested in publications and  the gameday atmosphere at football games, but ended up researching information about the school.

Yikes!  Looks like I have a bit of crow to eat!  Usually when I tell people in the Twin Cities I graduated from SJU, the response is about the football team-- and no mention of its other academic treasures.  So I was doing the assuming thing with the appropriate ass-u-me result, I suppose!

I said earlier that I think the perception thing is really a red herring.  D-III is already the "bottom rung" when it comes to public perception of athletic competitiveness; it's not as though you can fall much farther in population's eyes.  The strength of D-III's public perception has always been its academic focus-- the Middleburys, Macalesters and MITs.  That won't change by creating a D-IV.  Furthermore, don't you think they were worried about the perception thing in 1973 when they made the current setup from a pre-existing "University" and "College" divisioning?  Seemed to work out ok, as 35 years later the "low rung" is the most populous member. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on January 17, 2008, 03:06:52 PM

QuoteWe also have a large number of first generation student-athletes and students.  (The men's basketball coach counted 7 of 16 players as being first generation college-students!  That is a tremendous statement affirming our goals as an institution!)  Athletics is the entry point for these student-athletes.

I for one think this is a terrific statistic... thanks for letting us know that Ralph!

QuoteGetting the student-athlete to accept when their athletic careers are over is one topic that we don't discuss much on these boards, but that aspect of the relationships that a student develops on the campus is part of the maturing process.  This process of accepting the extent of the athletic career happens more frequently at D-III than D-II or D-I

This is a point that is not made often enough... but it is absolutely the essence of what college and for most, college athletics should mean... Preparation for the rest of your life!

We do lose sight of this far to often...


Very interesting discussion here...

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 17, 2008, 04:08:13 PM
Quote from: Bob Maxwell on January 17, 2008, 03:06:52 PM
QuoteWe also have a large number of first generation student-athletes and students.  (The men's basketball coach counted 7 of 16 players as being first generation college-students!  That is a tremendous statement affirming our goals as an institution!)  Athletics is the entry point for these student-athletes.

I for one think this is a terrific statistic... thanks for letting us know that Ralph!

This is a whole separate question, one that I find intriguing and hinted at the other day.  One very great value of intercollegiate athletics, to me at least, is that it opens doors to a college education for students that might not get that chance elsewhere.  That's a Cliffs Notes version of the film All the Right Moves (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085154/), where a gifted student chooses to focus on football as the best means of assuring that he can get a college education, then has a personality conflict with his high school coach, thereby threatening his entire future.  Of course, a lot of that revolves around athletic scholarships, which we don't have in D3.  But the basic point is still valid: is it right that schools openly discriminate in admissions on the basis of academic aptitude? 

Statistics show again and again that a college degree enhances one's earning power many times over; without a degree, in our society, you have 2.9 strikes against you right from the start.  There are schools, like Oberlin or Chicago (to say nothing of Caltech and MIT), where the intellectual ability of the students is absolutely crucial to the academic mission, but there are others (which I shall not attempt to name, for fear that it would be taken as an unintended insult) where the academic mission is more aligned towards teaching, the imparting of knowledge from professor to student, where the active classroom participation of the class is not an essential element.  Why should such schools openly prefer applications with higher GPA and SAT scores (leaving aside the societal issues that these raise), if those students are just going to be expected to sit quietly and take notes?  Why not prefer someone who has shown a willingness to work hard and a strong desire to succeed?  Someone like, say, an athlete?

Lest you think I've strayed too far off topic, maybe this is a potential dividing line between a D3 and a D4.  The D4 could cater to the academic elite to foster a collaborative intellectual experience, while the D3 focuses on providing the best possible education to the widest possible spectrum of students?  Just a thought that is far from fully-formed in my own head.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 17, 2008, 04:28:39 PM
This matter is not about ethics; it is about politics; it is about who gets what resources!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 17, 2008, 04:50:13 PM
Quote from: frank uible on January 17, 2008, 04:28:39 PM
This matter is not about ethics; it is about politics; it is about who gets what resources!

At risk of coming across as a public scold, let me say that the only folks who think "politics" can be divorced from "ethics" are politicians -- elected, appointed, and all others who roam the halls of power. (If politics ain't ethically relevant, nothing is.)

[End of homily .... ]
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: speedy on January 17, 2008, 06:18:32 PM
Anybody have any information as to what happened at the NCAA convention regarding the formation of D4 (or something like it)?? I know that they were not to make decisions at this meeting but I thought we would get some notion of level of interest and likely direction coming out of this meeting . . .
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2008, 07:50:55 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 17, 2008, 04:08:13 PM
Quote from: Bob Maxwell on January 17, 2008, 03:06:52 PM
QuoteWe also have a large number of first generation student-athletes and students.  (The men's basketball coach counted 7 of 16 players as being first generation college-students!  That is a tremendous statement affirming our goals as an institution!)  Athletics is the entry point for these student-athletes.

I for one think this is a terrific statistic... thanks for letting us know that Ralph!

This is a whole separate question, one that I find intriguing and hinted at the other day.  One very great value of intercollegiate athletics, to me at least, is that it opens doors to a college education for students that might not get that chance elsewhere.  That's a Cliffs Notes version of the film All the Right Moves (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085154/), where a gifted student chooses to focus on football as the best means of assuring that he can get a college education, then has a personality conflict with his high school coach, thereby threatening his entire future.  Of course, a lot of that revolves around athletic scholarships, which we don't have in D3.  But the basic point is still valid: is it right that schools openly discriminate in admissions on the basis of academic aptitude? 

Statistics show again and again that a college degree enhances one's earning power many times over; without a degree, in our society, you have 2.9 strikes against you right from the start.  There are schools, like Oberlin or Chicago (to say nothing of Caltech and MIT), where the intellectual ability of the students is absolutely crucial to the academic mission, but there are others (which I shall not attempt to name, for fear that it would be taken as an unintended insult) where the academic mission is more aligned towards teaching, the imparting of knowledge from professor to student, where the active classroom participation of the class is not an essential element.  Why should such schools openly prefer applications with higher GPA and SAT scores (leaving aside the societal issues that these raise), if those students are just going to be expected to sit quietly and take notes?  Why not prefer someone who has shown a willingness to work hard and a strong desire to succeed?  Someone like, say, an athlete?

Lest you think I've strayed too far off topic, maybe this is a potential dividing line between a D3 and a D4.  The D4 could cater to the academic elite to foster a collaborative intellectual experience, while the D3 focuses on providing the best possible education to the widest possible spectrum of students?  Just a thought that is far from fully-formed in my own head.
David has brought us back to the edge of the politically incorrect position that some of the academically more selective schools face.  Finding 150 schools that have a different understanding of the role of athletics on the campus is the challenge for any group of schools currently in D3.

How do you separate yourself and get all of the aspects of what you want?

More opportunities for student-athletes to explore other activities on the campus without the attendant de-emphasis that comes with that choice of time utilization?  MIT basketball student-athlete/blogger Jimmy Bartolotta (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2007/12/07/) has already declared any other extra-curricular activity at MIT is impossible with athletics as we know it in D3.

I think that this will be an intensive process.  I think that the surveys that are circulated by Indianapolis will be quite instructive.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 17, 2008, 08:34:21 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2008, 07:50:55 PM
More opportunities for student-athletes to explore other activities on the campus without the attendant de-emphasis that comes with that choice of time utilization?  MIT basketball student-athlete/blogger Jimmy Bartolotta (http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2007/12/07/) has already declared any other extra-curricular activity at MIT is impossible with athletics as we know it in D3.

I don't think MIT should be taken as representative of D3.  I would suggest that Jimmy Bartolotta's time management issues are due far more to the exceptionally grueling academic load at MIT than to athletics, and no "reform" of athletics is likely to make much of an impact on his life.

I'd ask what the "politically incorrect" position is that you refer to, but I abhor polarizing language like that and am probably better off not knowing.  :-\
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: AF4 on January 17, 2008, 08:45:37 PM
Ralph...with respect

the MIT student athlete is also able to take the time to blog...

uh... i have no doubt that some of these school r real, real tough... but i am unsure if that is always a valid point..... some folks r unable to do anythang  but pass  (me)... some can keep thier hands in a bunch of thangs and flourish...even in elite schools or professinonal schools (my oldest daughter)

MIT is no doubt tough...but...do u believe it is that much harder than Ga Tech (go look up thier admission) they play competitive D-1 and it is an engineering school...ain't any basket weaving or even PE degrees

r these elite schools that kids do not have anymore time to do anythang  but play 1 sport and study any harder than the service academies...and they do a bunch of extracurricular stuff

so... i got to believe that this elite "our kids can't compete in regular d-3 sports, study, and compete on the debate team too cause of lack of time" is bogus

i have enjoyed yall discussion about d3-d4...and am..as usual probably wrong

keep the faith

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2008, 09:35:31 PM
Gentlemen, thanks for the responses.

I may have mis-interpreted David's most recent post. 

Let me amplify the problem that the "more academically elite" face.

To get to the core 150 schools that are necessary for the division to function, you need the 12 conferences that the foundation document lists in D4.

QuoteD3A core conferences using a "sports sponsorship" methodology (slide 124): Centennial, CCIW, HCAC, IIAC, MIAA, undivided MAC, MWC, NESCAC, NCAC, NWC, OAC, PrAC, SCIAC, UAA, WIAC
(Simplification:  D3A is "many sports," D3 is "fewer sports")
D4 core conferences using a methodology combining "sports sponsorship" and "institutional philosophy" (slides 153ff):  Centennial, CCIW, IIAC, MIAA, MWC, MIAC, NESCAC, NCAC, OAC, SCIAC, WIAC
(Simplification: D4 is "many sports and conservative voting record", while D3 is "fewer sports OR liberal voting record")
-- http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.829  (David Collinge's excellent summary of the Power Point presentation of some of the background documents that circulated last summer.)

QuoteDennis Collins, the Executive Director wants the newer members in D3 out of D3 and into a "haven".

http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.952

We see the scenario of the NESCAC not being able to find 25 "in-division" basketball games among "like-institutions".  No more games against the MASCAC, the GNAC or even the NEWMAC.

If we add the UAA to the conferences in D4, then we have the scenario that Emory doesn't have a peer institution within 500 miles.

Respectfully, the MIT student may have blogged over the Holidays, but he has not blogged since.

I wonder if we will get a report from the convention as to the response from the floor to the presentations arising from the Presidents Council and the Management Council.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 18, 2008, 01:23:57 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 17, 2008, 04:08:13 PMThis is a whole separate question, one that I find intriguing and hinted at the other day.  One very great value of intercollegiate athletics, to me at least, is that it opens doors to a college education for students that might not get that chance elsewhere.  That's a Cliffs Notes version of the film All the Right Moves (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085154/), where a gifted student chooses to focus on football as the best means of assuring that he can get a college education, then has a personality conflict with his high school coach, thereby threatening his entire future.

IIRC, Stefan Djordevic (Tom Cruise) wasn't a gifted student in All the Right Moves. He had a B average, and therefore needed to earn a football scholie because he didn't have the grades to get an academic scholie nor the money to pay his own way through college.

But what I mostly remember about that movie was how smokin' hot Lea Thompson was back in 1983. :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 18, 2008, 07:39:00 AM
Quote from: AF4 on January 17, 2008, 08:45:37 PM
so... i got to believe that this elite "our kids can't compete in regular d-3 sports, study, and compete on the debate team too cause of lack of time" is bogus

Let me just say this.  If a kid wants to go to graduate or professional school or wants to pursue a Fellowship after graduation, then the only way  to participate in any extracurricular activity is outside of your sports season.  Since basketball covers 2 semesters in the academic year, it is virtually impossible for Basketball players to be involved in anything outside of class except basketball.  However for football, baseball and the other single semester sports it is possible for the student athletes to be involved in debate (or whatever) when their sport is out of season. 

If a kid is really serious about post graduation opportunities, then oftentimes they just leave the sports alone to focus on that.   

I have seen it and lived it...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on January 18, 2008, 11:19:25 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 18, 2008, 01:23:57 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 17, 2008, 04:08:13 PMThis is a whole separate question, one that I find intriguing and hinted at the other day.  One very great value of intercollegiate athletics, to me at least, is that it opens doors to a college education for students that might not get that chance elsewhere.  That's a Cliffs Notes version of the film All the Right Moves (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085154/), where a gifted student chooses to focus on football as the best means of assuring that he can get a college education, then has a personality conflict with his high school coach, thereby threatening his entire future.

IIRC, Stefan Djordevic (Tom Cruise) wasn't a gifted student in All the Right Moves. He had a B average, and therefore needed to earn a football scholie because he didn't have the grades to get an academic scholie nor the money to pay his own way through college.

My interpretation has always been that Stefan's schoolwork suffered because he chose to concentrate on football.  The subtext of the film is that, for Ampipe students, the only way out is football.  Lisa (Lea Thompson) says as much when she's lamenting her already-decided fate; she wants to go to college to study music, but that's a dream because "nobody in Ampipe gets a music scholarship, just football."  It's clear right from the start that Stefan is only using football as a way to get into the best possible engineering school.  Stef is a goal-oriented kid who spends his spare time dreaming up and drafting inventions; I interpret this as an indication that he could be a straight-A student if he put his focus there.  But he plays in a football program that attracts recruiters like honey attracts flies (IIRC, he has teammates headed to Duke, West Virginia, and two or three other major D1s), and he's figured out that football scholarships are much more readily available to him than academic ones, so he's opted to concentrate on football, to the detriment of his grades (to say nothing of his social life.)

Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 18, 2008, 01:23:57 AMBut what I mostly remember about that movie was how smokin' hot Lea Thompson was back in 1983. :D
Why do you suppose I can discuss this quarter-century-old film (and a Tom Cruise film, to boot ::)) like it was released yesterday?  ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 18, 2008, 11:29:16 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on January 18, 2008, 11:19:25 AM

...
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 18, 2008, 01:23:57 AMBut what I mostly remember about that movie was how smokin' hot Lea Thompson was back in 1983. :D
Why do you suppose I can discuss this quarter-century-old film (and a Tom Cruise film, to boot ::)) like it was released yesterday?  ;)
I'm with Gregory on this one.  ;)  And throw in Space Camp and Back to the Future, too!   :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 18, 2008, 12:22:23 PM
In high school, the motivated over-achievers could be in every club, play sports, do drama, etc.

In college, that's just not possible no matter who you are or what you do, if you are at an institution that has a rigorous cirriculum.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 18, 2008, 01:22:59 PM
wilburt: Generalizations that hold up categorically are truly hard to find. The admittedly atypical  little DIII college located here has about 40% of its undergraduate student body participate in inter-collegiate athletics. Of those participants I estimate that a slight majority (including a majority of basketball and football players) end up receiving graduate degrees, and most probably a majority of that majority participates in non- athletic extra-curricular college activities of some sort during one or more of their respective athletic seasons.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 18, 2008, 05:16:30 PM
New article on NCAA.org about the D-III/D-IV debate (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g38nYBSYGYxqb6kWhCjggRX4_83FSgeKQ5UMA0NEw_Kic1PTG5Uj9Y31s_QL8gNzSiPN9REQDSw7cx/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWlDU1lBIS9JTGpBQUV5QUJFUkVSRUlrLzRGR2dkWW5LSjBGUm9YZnJDRUEhLzdfMF81VVYvMTE1MTYzNg!!?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_0_5UV_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/Restructuring+recommendation+sparks+%27conversation%27+-+01-18-08+NCAA+News).

This seems to indicate there is very much still up in the air about this-- but that they are still on track to have something ready for next year's convention.

QuoteFor some, the membership's votes earlier in the day to reject -- and then to reconsider and approve -- a proposal to permit similar but separate academic and other support services for student-athletes served notice that the time is near for a decision.

"There are people who are on both sides of that issue -- I recognize that -- but that's precisely the point," said Douglas Bennett, president of Earlham College. "There are at least two very different ways of thinking about these issues that we're trying to contain in Division III.

"Are we ready to be done? No. But we do need to listen to one another, even though that's going to be difficult because we've gotten so large, and because we're angry and anxious. Let's take our time, let's do this survey, let's listen carefully to it, and let's trust our elected leaders."

The Convention discussion, as focused as it was on the working group's recommendation, produced few other alternatives beyond maintaining the status quo, as several delegates suggested the potential impact of restructuring on institutions' ability to recruit students and on current conference affiliations isn't worth the trouble.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 18, 2008, 05:21:41 PM
More news from the convention:

Early report from drug testing study (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g38nYBSYGYxqb6kWhCjggRb31fj_zcVP0A_YLc0IhyR0VFAABTEJw!/delta/base64xml/L0lDU0lKQ1RPN29na21BISEvb0VvUUFBSVFnakZJQUFRaENFSVFqR0VBLzRKRmlDbzBlaDFpY29uUVZHaGQtc0lRIS83XzBfNVVWLzExODYyNDU!?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_0_5UV_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/Division+III+delegates+receive+early+drug+education+testing+pilot+report+-+01-15-08+NCAA+News). 

QuoteIn testing last fall involving 437 student-athletes at 22 Division III schools, 7 percent of the student-athletes tested positive for street drugs (primarily marijuana) and 6 percent tested positive for stimulants. Positive rates for other substances were considerably lower, with one-half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) testing positive for diuretics and two-tenths of 1 percent (0.2 percent) testing positive for anabolic steroids. Student-athletes who fail to report for testing also count as positive tests; 0.7 percent of the student-athletes were recorded as "no shows."

Voting results from the Convention (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g38nYBSYGYxqb6kWhCjggRX4_83FSgeKQ5UMA0NEw_Kic1PTG5Uj9Y31s_QL8gNzSiPN9REQDSw7cx/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWlDU1lBIS9JTGpBQUV5QUJFUkVSRUlrLzRGR2dkWW5LSjBGUm9YZnJDRUEhLzdfMF81VVYvMTE4Nzg4Nw!!?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_0_5UV_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/Division+III+voting+results+-+01-18-08+NCAA+News).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 20, 2008, 12:15:58 AM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on January 18, 2008, 05:21:41 PM
More news from the convention:

Voting results from the Convention (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g38nYBSYGYxqb6kWhCjggRX4_83FSgeKQ5UMA0NEw_Kic1PTG5Uj9Y31s_QL8gNzSiPN9REQDSw7cx/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWlDU1lBIS9JTGpBQUV5QUJFUkVSRUlrLzRGR2dkWW5LSjBGUm9YZnJDRUEhLzdfMF81VVYvMTE4Nzg4Nw!!?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_0_5UV_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/Division+III+voting+results+-+01-18-08+NCAA+News).
I am certain that the initial response was not what the "secessionists" wanted.

So, I think that we shall see some additional analyses on the proposals 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 as to how the votes fell and into which "camps" the voting blocs aligned.   :-\
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on January 21, 2008, 03:29:32 PM
Ralph,found this little tid bit on the Centennial Conference  home page.

http://centennialconference.blogspot.com/2008/01/convention-recap.html

Thought you may enjoy it.


Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 21, 2008, 04:15:55 PM
Quote from: old ends on January 21, 2008, 03:29:32 PM
Ralph,found this little tid bit on the Centennial Conference  home page.

http://centennialconference.blogspot.com/2008/01/convention-recap.html

Thought you may enjoy it.
Thanks for posting that link!  +1  :)

I read several comments about the November 15th starting date in favor of it.

--It made starting across the NCAA more consistent.

--A benefit was that it would offer another weekend of games in some years which would help to dilute the season over a longer period of time.

--This November 15th date would give more flexibility to scheduling.  Since the practice starting date is October 15th, there was little benefit to a more restrictive starting date.

--In areas of the country where there are a number of NAIA schools, the 15 November date is closer to the NAIA date.  This gives less of an advantage to NAIA schools.

The SAAC proposal about requiring personnel for the defibrillator equipment was felt to be an intrusion on local policy and local building codes.

I thought it interesting that the CC SAAC was not opposed to the use of male practice players.  I am interested in the voting patterns on that one.

The undercurrent of "more permissive" is mentioned, so I think that we will re-visit the D-IV issue.

Thanks again for sharing the link!



Correction, the CC SAAC was in favor of the less restrictive male practice player usage.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 23, 2008, 08:34:50 AM
Instead of Division IV they should have a Division 2.5.  That Division could be the hybrid between Division III and II which is really being suggested throughout the NCAA Convention.  Division 2.5 would have less restrictions on financial aid (that is being complained about now with certain schools), allow redshirting and the like.  Keep the current Division III as is.

Just a thought...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 23, 2008, 09:17:36 AM
Yes, they should, but....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on January 24, 2008, 02:36:22 PM
Ralph:

Found more item on a Centennial Blog.. Some of it you have read before, I am sure, but keep scrolling down and look at some of the surveys..

http://centennialsaac.blogspot.com/

Enjoy!!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 24, 2008, 03:57:44 PM
Quote from: old ends on January 24, 2008, 02:36:22 PM
Ralph:

Found more item on a Centennial Blog.. Some of it you have read before, I am sure, but keep scrolling down and look at some of the surveys..

http://centennialsaac.blogspot.com/

Enjoy!!
Pre-Convention informational pdf (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/December_7_mailing/attachment_d.pdf).

Old ends, I thought this document was very instructive. Question #29 on page 9 of 11 addresses the time commitment in the traditional and non-traditional season, which is likely to be less.

That question also has the comment that the remaining members in D-III might vote to permit more time commitment in the traditional and non-traditional segments.

Operationally defined, how can the institutions desiring these changes not acknowledge that they have sought to de-emphasize athletics on the campus?

Thanks for posting and +1!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 24, 2008, 06:50:16 PM
One other random thought about the health of "D-2", which is supposedly under review by the NCAA during this process.

Why does it take a D-III school a three-year provisional period to move to D-II  (two years exploratory with the school being eligible in the first of the these years in D-III)?

Are there any NCAA policies specific to D-II that could not be "mastered" by a full-member D-III school in good standing during a one-year provisional period?  It seems to me that the three-year provisional period from D-III to D-II is an obstacle, in and of itself!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on January 24, 2008, 08:00:49 PM
Ralph:

Even thought we know the outcome of certain proposals from the recent NCAA meetings. Did you scroll down futher to see the results of some of the surveys??
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 24, 2008, 08:47:17 PM
Quote from: old ends on January 24, 2008, 08:00:49 PM
Ralph:

Even thought we know the outcome of certain proposals from the recent NCAA meetings. Did you scroll down futher to see the results of some of the surveys??
Old ends, I am unclear as to what you are referring?

Thanks. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on January 24, 2008, 09:00:04 PM
On the Centennial blog as you scroll down past the pre meeting info there are some results on the proposal the Centennial proposed.
try this:National SAAC Says Text Messaging Has No Place in Recruiting
The NCAA Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee supported the Centennial Conference's proposal that would eliminate informal methods of communication between coaches and prospective student-athletes at its July 19-22 meeting.

While the SAAC was concerned about the costs incurred by prospective student-athletes related to text messaging, the committee also believes the use text messaging, instant messaging and social networking sites are invasive forms of recruiting.

"It's impersonal and intrusive," said committee Chair Sameer Khan, a former golf student-athlete at Fairleigh Dickinson University, Florham. "With the traditional form of recruiting, prospects weren't bothered at all hours of the day. Text messaging makes them accessible all the time and we don't agree with that philosophy."

The committee also asserted that Division III shouldn't be in the habit of recruiting in such an informal manner — institutions of higher education should be held to a higher communication standard.

Read more in the NCAA News



Labels: Legislation


Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Results of NCAA Male Practice Player Survey
Results of male practice players survey released

April 17, 2007

After more than two years of debate — both inside and outside the governance structure — about whether to limit or even eliminate the use of male practice players in women's sports, the NCAA has collected data from athletics administrators and coaches in all three divisions to better assess both the extent to which male practice players are used and the effect they have on participation opportunities for female student-athletes.

Survey results show widespread use of male practice players in all three divisions — most prominently in women's basketball and to a lesser degree in volleyball and soccer — and most respondents said male practice players don't change how the non-starting members of a team are used in practice and don't affect the number of grants-in-aid schools award to female student-athletes.

Specifically, survey results show:

• Two-thirds of all Division I institutions reported using male practice players in at least one women's sport in 2005-06. Two-thirds of Division I women's basketball teams also reported use, about one-third of which said they used male practice players almost every day.
• About 35 percent of Division II schools and 40 percent of Division III institutions reported using male practice players as well.
• About two-thirds of Division I women's basketball and volleyball squads and more than 80 percent in soccer reported no change in how non-starting team members were used when male practice players were used.
• Only two schools (one each in Divisions I and II) said they recruited fewer female players or provided fewer scholarships because of using male practice players.
• More basketball teams use male practice players in the championship segment than do volleyball and soccer teams, which concentrate use more in the nonchampionship portions of the playing and practice season.

The intent of the survey was to gain a more realistic assessment of the types of use on campus rather than rely on anecdotal evidence. Only Division III included philosophical questions about eliminating or limiting the practice, since that division is the only one to have considered legislative modifications so far. Division III delegates at the January Convention considered and subsequently deferred a proposal from the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee to limit the use of male practice players to once per week during the traditional season and to no more than half the number of players required to field a starting team.

When asked about eliminating the practice, about one-fourth of the Division III membership indicated support. However, more than 90 percent of the schools that used male practice players in 2005-06 opposed a ban, and even of those schools that did not use male practice players in 2005-06, almost two-thirds said they would not want the practice eliminated.

The Division III survey did reveal interest in limitations, though, as about half overall indicated support for limiting both the frequency of use and the number of players that can be used. Even half the schools that used male practice players in 2005-06 agreed with that approach.

Governance vetting

The Divisions II and III Management Councils reviewed the survey results during meetings April 16-17 in Indianapolis. The Division I Management Council, which also met April 16, has asked its Championships/Competition Cabinet to study the results and make recommendations. A subcommittee of that group was briefed on the matter during an April 19 conference call. The full cabinet expects to review the issue at its next meeting in June.

NCAA Senior Vice President for Championships Joni Comstock said the comprehensive review was appropriate, given the number of years the practice has gone relatively unregulated. The Division I survey indicated schools have been using male practice players for an average of about seven years, and fewer than 16 percent of schools that used male practice players said they had formal policies governing their use.

"The use of male practice players has gone on for many years without formal review, and it is time to consider if the practice is in the best interests of women student-athletes," Comstock said.

With usage numbers now in hand, both the Division II and III Councils agreed to seek more feedback from their respective governance structures and coaches associations on the appropriateness of using males in practice situations. It remains to be seen whether that solicitation will lead to proposed legislation for the 2008 Convention.

Survey response rates were high in all three divisions, highlighted by the 95.4 percent response in Division I. Divisions II and III earned response rates of 86.8 percent and 77.1 percent, respectively.

"The response indicates that people have become engaged in the issue, which is a positive outcome," said Carolyn Femovich, executive director of the Patriot League and chair of the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet. "The survey is intended to get people talking at the campus level about the pros and cons and the management of the issue. That clearly has been accomplished. If you don't ask the question, you don't know what's actually happening on campus and why coaches believe it may or may not be an important issue."

The issue of male practice players emerged in October 2004 when the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics, in accordance with its mission of protecting and enhancing female student-athlete participation opportunities, began questioning whether the use of male practice players reduced opportunities for women athletes. The committee urged a three-pronged review to determine whether the practice was widespread, whether the membership was adequately educated about male practice player eligibility requirements, and whether legislative modifications were necessary.

Though several constituencies have been outspoken on the issue since then — including the Women's Basketball Coaches Association, which said it would oppose elimination of the practice — the NCAA did not take a position on the issue until research could inform a decision through the governance structure. The recently conducted survey represents the best opportunity for the NCAA membership to take that approach.

"With an issue of this nature, it is imperative to have a process in place that allows the issue to be well vetted in the membership," Femovich said. "We now have the research necessary to inform those discussions."




Survey highlights
Division I
• Of the 312 schools responding, 205 (65.7 percent) said they used male practice players in 2005-06.
• The sports most frequently using male practice players are basketball (61.2 percent of sponsorship), volleyball (16.4 percent) and soccer (10.3 percent).
• Usage was more frequent in basketball, as 20 teams reported daily use and 47 others reported using male practice players four to six times per week. In volleyball and soccer, most teams reported occasional use (one to three times per week or just a few times per month).
• Results show no meaningful statistical relationship between the squad size and the number of male practice players.
• Results show no meaningful statistical relationship between the number of grants-in-aid awarded and the number of male practice players.
• About two-thirds of women's basketball and volleyball squads and more than 80 percent in soccer reported no change in how non-starting team members were used when male practice players were used.

Division II
• Of the 257 schools responding, 89 (34.6 percent) said they used male practice players in 2005-06. 
• The sports most frequently using male practice players are basketball (24.8 percent of sponsorship), volleyball (10.4 percent) and soccer (6.8 percent).
• Frequency of use was reported primarily as occasional (one to three times per week or just a few times per month) in basketball and volleyball.
• About 75 percent of respondents reported no change in how non-starting team members were used when male practice players were used.
• Only one institution reported an impact on financial aid decisions.

Division III
• Of the 337 schools responding, 136 (40.4 percent) said they used male practice players in 2005-06.
• The sports most frequently using male practice players are basketball (26.2 percent of sponsorship), volleyball (12.4 percent) and soccer (6.6 percent).
• Almost all respondents reported frequency of use as one to three times per week or just a few times per month.
• For the most part, the role of non-starting team members went unchanged when male practice players were used; however, there was a slight increase when compared to the starters in the number of instances of being relegated to the bench or implementing the visiting team's offense.



Also read this:  http://www.landmarkconference.org/information/Conference_news/lc_institute_1_22_08
and think how you as the student-athlectic rep for SAAC  sit and listen as they talk outside the realm.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 24, 2008, 09:23:50 PM

Here, here.  I'm not sure why the NCAA allows these forms of invasive recruiting at all.

I know, were I a prospective student athlete, I would write off any coach who kept bothering me like that (although I assume many athletes don't ask them to stop).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 24, 2008, 11:37:17 PM
No recruit will be bothered if he trashes or turns off his damned gizmo!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Spence on January 25, 2008, 08:57:20 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 24, 2008, 06:50:16 PM
One other random thought about the health of "D-2", which is supposedly under review by the NCAA during this process.

Why does it take a D-III school a three-year provisional period to move to D-II  (two years exploratory with the school being eligible in the first of the these years in D-III)?

Are there any NCAA policies specific to D-II that could not be "mastered" by a full-member D-III school in good standing during a one-year provisional period?  It seems to me that the three-year provisional period from D-III to D-II is an obstacle, in and of itself!

Good point, but I'm not sure it is going to matter.

I think D-II is dying a slow death. D-II IMO is the worst of all worlds; you don't draw the crowds the D-I schools do or get the quality of athlete, so either you have an inferior athlete or an inferior student. At the same time, you're still giving scholarships for same. Sure there are non-scholarship recruits but it's still IMO different than D-III in that way.

I realize there is an issue with travel time for some in the south but I think eventually a group of schools will fix that problem together, or at least mitigate it.

Depending on the configuration of the more competitive, athletics-centric division that is formed (if D-III is split), I think it could end up having a lot of D-II schools and perhaps even finish off D-II. Good for colleges' bottom lines, bad for felons who want to go to school for free.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 25, 2008, 09:44:21 AM
I do often wonder about Division II's role in this. One would think a II-AA, with lower scholarship totals, might be attractive to some Division III members.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Spence on January 25, 2008, 10:06:42 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 25, 2008, 09:44:21 AM
I do often wonder about Division II's role in this. One would think a II-AA, with lower scholarship totals, might be attractive to some Division III members.

D-II is close to being unviably small as it is. I don't think it would take very much to tip it over the edge, and I would be surprised if there aren't people looking at the size of D-III and the size of D-II and wondering "hmmm, how can we balance this up?"

If I were a D-II president in this environment, I'd be wondering why the heck I'm offering scholarships and not getting any more back out of it than the D-III schools that aren't offering them and use their non-scholarship programs as a tool to boost enrollment and application revenue.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 25, 2008, 10:44:11 AM
I have been at a client recently who is building a new basketball arena with an eye for an eventual move from D-2 to D-1.

D-2, from what I observe, is mostly the smaller state schools that are regional in nature and scope. They're caught as they need athletics to boost enrollment, but they're also at the mercy of the state for funding. Many don't have top-notch development programs. I think D-2 school are going to have to make a choice soon on what they are and what they want to be. Perhaps the D-2 model can be shifted to greatly reduced scholarships and lower costs.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 25, 2008, 10:48:59 AM
There are 282 Division II members plus 11 provisionals. I'm not sure that's THAT close to being unviable. I know it's shrinking but I think it would take a while before this truly became a problem.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 25, 2008, 11:18:33 AM
I have felt for some time that D2 is the 800-pound gorilla in the room as far as the NCAA is concerned.  Everyone seems to note there is a problem with numbers in D-3, and the opposite problem with numbers in D2, but D2 refuses to acknowledge that they may need to do something about it.  Witness their "self-study" change group from a year or so, who was given the task of making recommendations about how to make D-2 a more attractive option-- their foundational premise was that they could "do no harm to D-2's structure".  So how can you make drastic improvements without the ability to change the structure of the division?

It is clear that D-2 is at a crossroads itself-- there was a vote regarding limiting football scholarships there about a year or so ago that was hotly contested and came down in a 45-55 split-- however, some of those that were on the 55 side have now left D-2 in favor of greener pastures (e.g. U of North Dakota-- pun intended), so if that vote was taken today things may be different.  But there is clearly an element of schools in D-2 that would love to limit the number of scholarships allowed; however, I don't know if limiting football to, say, 20 scholarships (instead of the 36 currently allowed) would still entice any D-3ers to join:  20 full scholarships at the U of St. Thomas would still cost almost a million dollars per year-- and that is just for football-- how many current D-3 schools would want that much capital outlay to hang with the crowd in D-2?

I think the D-2 lite is the way to think about the D-3/D-4 debate, which is probably why the group favoring fewer restrictions on athletics would remain in D-3-- so as you go past the divisions, you would see full scholarship D1, some scholarship D2, athletics-minded D3, and academics minded D-4.  Is this elitist?  You bet.  Is it true?  Well, there is quite a bit of truth in it, at least. 

But there is room for the D-2 model, and it does serve a very viable need.  It isn't irrelevant, but it does seem to be outdated.  But then again, so is the D-3 model too, and perhaps even the D-1 model.   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 25, 2008, 11:25:02 AM
I would add one counterpoint here -- I think a lowering from 36 to 20 would still make D-II more attractive because it would make it easier to compete.

You don't HAVE to offer 20 football scholarships. Shoot, some offer none. But if you're offering, say, 10 scholarships in football in Division II, you're more likely to be successful if others are offering 20 rather than 36.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 25, 2008, 11:27:09 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 25, 2008, 11:25:02 AM
I would add one counterpoint here -- I think a lowering from 36 to 20 would still make D-II more attractive because it would make it easier to compete.

You don't HAVE to offer 20 football scholarships. Shoot, some offer none. But if you're offering, say, 10 scholarships in football in Division II, you're more likely to be successful if others are offering 20 rather than 36.

Good point-- and I don't even think it is a counterpoint.  What I was trying to do was illustrate that D-2 is being pulled apart at its seams too.  Don't forget, they have proposed having two football playoffs in the future too-- one with >20 scholarships, one for less than 20 scholarships.   

More than anything else, I was trying to get at how D-2's proposed reforms aren't likely to entice any D-3ers to come on board because the cost is still too high.  Shoot, even 10 scholarships can cost a half-million-- and that is just in one sport.  How many current D-3 schools could afford that additional expense and justify it entirely in their athletic departments?  If you draw 10k fans per game for 5 games, you'd need to charge $10 a ticket to break even on those scholarships, and that doesn't count the cost of running the program.  Not to mention your relative success level if you were only giving half the scholarships.  Sure, you could do well here and there (beating the Moorhead State's, but my guess is over the long haul the UMDs and St. Cloud States would kill you.)  Then what happens to that revenue?

So I don't think D-2's reforms are likely to be the cure for D-3's problems.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Eblen on January 26, 2008, 12:23:54 PM
I've enjoyed reading about and following the whole D-III/D-IV debate (particularly this thread) over the past several months. As someone that has followed and covered the many issues surrounding D-II over the years, I decided I would like to register and add my two cents.

Firstly, I don't understand where people come up with the notion that D-II is not viable or shrinking. Similar to what happened in D-III, D-II went through massive growth in the 90's, gaining 88 members (most coming from the NAIA) from 1989 to 1999. Overall membership (active and provisional) stood at 209 in 1989 and peaked at 297 in 1999.

There was a natural retrenchment in the first half of this decade once the membership moratorium was enacted and overall standards as far as sports sponsorship and minimum financial aid commitments were put in place. Not to mention the fact that many prominent D-II schools left the division due to the fact that it had been overrun by schools that were not ready philosophically or financially to compete at this level.

This year D-II membership sits at 298 active and provisional members-- an all-time high. This is due to several factors, but the main reasons are that many of the schools with the immediate desire and wherewithal to move to D-I have already done so and D-II has finally started to do a better job of defining itself over the past the couple of years. Now granted, much of that "defining" is fluff like handing out "I Chose Division II" banners for schools to hang in their gym. But some of the progress made-- like entering into an agreement with CSTV to broadcast football and basketball each week-- is very tangible. D-II will almost certainly reach its stated goal of having ~ 300 active members and 25 conferences by 2011 or so.

The other issue I would like to address is that the football scholarship debate in D-II is over. The original proposal at the 2005 convention was to reduce from 36 to 24 scholarships and that failed by a wider than expected 2-to-1 margin.

From there D-II's Management Council asked the D-II Football Committee to take a look at splitting into two championships, one with 18 and one with 36 scholarships. I wrote a feature article on this subject for the 2006 D-II National Championship game program, so I covered this in great depth leading up to the 2007 convention. The impression I got at the time was that the split would fail, but that the vote might be close enough that it would be looked at again in the future.

Not only did the split fail resoundingly (29 votes for, 117 against), but Division II membership took it a step further by passing another legislative action that requires all future changes in scholarship levels in any sport to have a 2/3 majority. This action basically nuked any future scholarship reduction debate in D-II. I would surmise that it will be, at minimum, 15 years before anyone even brings it up again. In fact, the one conference that has been the impetus behind almost every scholarship reduction proposal in the past (the PSAC) has now lifted its self-imposed conference maximum of 25 scholarships in football and is now allowing it's members to offer 36. I bring all of this up because I firmly believe that a "D-II lite" in football is completely off the table for now.

Anyway, I really feel that the entire D-III debate going on right now will have a very limited impact on the future of D-II. This is simply because of the fact that D-III and D-II have more divergent philosophies than do D-II and D-I. (i.e. some athletic scholarships is more in line with full scholarships than no scholarships). Once a school makes the decision to offer athletic aid, it's much more likely to increase that aid and eventually move to D-I than decrease aid and move to D-III.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 26, 2008, 12:57:27 PM
Bob, Greetings, and this fan welcomes you to D3football/sports.com!

Great Post!  +1!   :)

You have authoritatively eliminated some of the confusion around the major questions about D-II with excellent and timely historical perspectives.

Best wishes, and I look forward to your thoughtful contributions to our discussions.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NYBB on January 26, 2008, 10:50:15 PM
It's upsetting to me that some D3 schools don't report their teams' scores on their websites for often times, several DAYS after the games are played.

Case and point : Tonight's Polytech vs. SUNY Purchase game.  Unless i actually attended the game, there's no way for me to know who won and knowing these two schools, the scores won't be added to their website(s) until at least three days from now.

This isn't the only time i've encountered this and it seems to only happen with D3's and some JUCO's.  All D2 and D1's keep up to date stats and so do most D3's...just disappointing that several of them don't.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 26, 2008, 11:04:22 PM
Quote from: Bob Eblen on January 26, 2008, 12:23:54 PM
I've enjoyed reading about and following the whole D-III/D-IV debate (particularly this thread) over the past several months. As someone that has followed and covered the many issues surrounding D-II over the years, I decided I would like to register and add my two cents.

Firstly, I don't understand where people come up with the notion that D-II is not viable or shrinking. Similar to what happened in D-III, D-II went through massive growth in the 90's, gaining 88 members (most coming from the NAIA) from 1989 to 1999. Overall membership (active and provisional) stood at 209 in 1989 and peaked at 297 in 1999.

There was a natural retrenchment in the first half of this decade once the membership moratorium was enacted and overall standards as far as sports sponsorship and minimum financial aid commitments were put in place. Not to mention the fact that many prominent D-II schools left the division due to the fact that it had been overrun by schools that were not ready philosophically or financially to compete at this level.

This year D-II membership sits at 298 active and provisional members-- an all-time high. This is due to several factors, but the main reasons are that many of the schools with the immediate desire and wherewithal to move to D-I have already done so and D-II has finally started to do a better job of defining itself over the past the couple of years. Now granted, much of that "defining" is fluff like handing out "I Chose Division II" banners for schools to hang in their gym. But some of the progress made-- like entering into an agreement with CSTV to broadcast football and basketball each week-- is very tangible. D-II will almost certainly reach its stated goal of having ~ 300 active members and 25 conferences by 2011 or so.

The other issue I would like to address is that the football scholarship debate in D-II is over. The original proposal at the 2005 convention was to reduce from 36 to 24 scholarships and that failed by a wider than expected 2-to-1 margin.

From there D-II's Management Council asked the D-II Football Committee to take a look at splitting into two championships, one with 18 and one with 36 scholarships. I wrote a feature article on this subject for the 2006 D-II National Championship game program, so I covered this in great depth leading up to the 2007 convention. The impression I got at the time was that the split would fail, but that the vote might be close enough that it would be looked at again in the future.

Not only did the split fail resoundingly (29 votes for, 117 against), but Division II membership took it a step further by passing another legislative action that requires all future changes in scholarship levels in any sport to have a 2/3 majority. This action basically nuked any future scholarship reduction debate in D-II. I would surmise that it will be, at minimum, 15 years before anyone even brings it up again. In fact, the one conference that has been the impetus behind almost every scholarship reduction proposal in the past (the PSAC) has now lifted its self-imposed conference maximum of 25 scholarships in football and is now allowing it's members to offer 36. I bring all of this up because I firmly believe that a "D-II lite" in football is completely off the table for now.

Anyway, I really feel that the entire D-III debate going on right now will have a very limited impact on the future of D-II. This is simply because of the fact that D-III and D-II have more divergent philosophies than do D-II and D-I. (i.e. some athletic scholarships is more in line with full scholarships than no scholarships). Once a school makes the decision to offer athletic aid, it's much more likely to increase that aid and eventually move to D-I than decrease aid and move to D-III.

Great post, Bob-- thanks for clarifying my take on the situation!

Don't forget that the loss of the NCC has changed the dynamic as well, forcing its remaining members to join an expanded NSIC and accept the lower scholarship numbers allowed by it.  The issue there is the DAC-8 (at least, as it was formerly known) was rumoured to join NSIC en masse (like U of Mary did).  But in gaining the NCC members, the remaining DAC members may be forced to stay put in the NAIA-- which appears to be a loss of 8 prospective schools (not to mention with UND going D-1, an actual paper loss for D-2). 

While this in no way makes it an unviable division in its current form, if D-3 is going to survive its membership problems, that divide between D-2 and D-3 will need to be bridged. But it doesn't appear that D-2 has shown any interest in doing that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 27, 2008, 08:36:47 AM
Good morning Johnnie,   :)

Respectfully, I don't think that the divide between scholarship and non-scholarship is the "divide".  Bob Edlen seems to have assuaged concerns that D-II is in the throes of demise.  It seems that the leadership in D-II is taking constructive action to strengthen the identity of the Division. 

Respectfully, I think that the divide is between de-emphasizing inter-collegiate athletics to "club" status (for example, so as to allow students to participate more fully in other aspects of campus life) and to continuing a variation of the same as we know in D-3.  I think that we have read a refutation of those recommendations for the new division or the new sub-division, and point-by-point analysis has answered every principle that has been put forth for a new D-IV.

In some cases, I think that the votes that are being prompted annually are strategically intended to drive a wedge between the members of the division.  IMHO, this is being promulgated by an ideological minority.  "They" don't want "us" in D-III.

IMHO, the problem is that "they" cannot find enough other members to join them to make a division of 150.  If there had been that "groundswell" at the convention, then that action would have gone forward on schedule and the "quake" would have occurred.

We have had no "puff pieces" about the convention since its adjournment.  What was being driven by someone, either from the management council or "them" or from the NCAA bureaucracy, was so thoroughly rejected that they are trying to "spin" the next press release.

Surveys are being sent to each institution in February as to the next step as to where to proceed.  I think that we have 420 members who like being D-3 and that is growing.  We have seen no data to show precisely that the variable cost of the next (421st) member joining D-III would be more expensive than the combined budgets of a D-III and a D-IV that are both growing.

Have a good Sunday!   :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 27, 2008, 02:39:43 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 27, 2008, 08:36:47 AM
"They" don't want "us" in D-III.

Funny you should mention that. That's exactly what I got when reading this column by Southwestern's president.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/01/18/0118schrum_edit.html

Keep NCAA Division III for those who got there first
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 27, 2008, 03:18:56 PM
Yikes!  The presidents of Southwestern and Earlham certainly seem "two peas in a pod", but the pod apparently doesn't hold 148 more peas!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 27, 2008, 06:59:59 PM
Holy cow! "We don't want your kind in here!!!"

That's gonna backfire.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 27, 2008, 10:56:55 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 27, 2008, 02:39:43 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 27, 2008, 08:36:47 AM
"They" don't want "us" in D-III.

Funny you should mention that. That's exactly what I got when reading this column by Southwestern's president.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/01/18/0118schrum_edit.html

Keep NCAA Division III for those who got there first


Wow. That certainly takes the cake.

I was going to respond to RT's well-written post by questioning the 150 schools aspect.  But statements like that from the President of the College are not constructive to the cause.

What I was going to address was whether it can be said that there aren't 150 schools that wish to join in.  Part of the problem is that the time to decide has not yet come, since, in many ways, D3 is currently a compromise between proposed D3/D4.  It's hard to know who would go where when there is no requirement to choose yet, and all schools are operating in compromise.  What is essentially being proposed is an elimination of that compromise.

The other problem is that geography can hurt these issues, specifically in the upper Midwest.  For football in the upper midwest, most of the inter-conference games took place between the MIAC/WIAC/IIAC/MWC-- four conferences that were slated to be D4.  Since this would not affect how schools in these conferences schedule and act, what is their incentive to take a stand on the D4 movement?  And by keeping these schools together in inter-conference games, it effectively isolates the UMAC conference-- one that could stay D3.

There is a long period of discussion yet to happen, but statements like that from the proponents won't help their cause.  In places like the South and the Northeast, where there is more diversity between D3 and D4, this issue will result in far more controversy.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 27, 2008, 11:51:10 PM
Thank you Johnnie for the well-considered perspective from your part of the country.

Dr Schrum's institution is the only "D-IV" by the most restrictive criteria in this part of the country.  My paternal grandfather, a very non-traditional student of very humble beginnings, was a 1925 grad of Southwestern and held an academic appointment of Instructor during his time there.  (I went to McMurry instead Southwestern, because McMurry gave me a better academic scholarship than Southwestern.  ;) )

Southwestern began its meteoric climb in prestige, prominence and endowment in the early 1980's when a friend of mine and McMurry alum, Dr Roy Shilling, became president.  He (and Dr Schrum) tapped into Methodist money in Houston and San Antonio, including the families of Brown and Root (Halliburton) in Houston and Red McCombs (http://www.southwestern.edu/newsroom/news/060919.html) among others from San Antonio.  (Cynics and haters are rolling their eyes in disbelief of the generosity that these families have committed to building Southwestern.)  Southwestern's endowment has probably grown 10-fold (1000%) in the last 28 years under his leadership and that of Dr Schrum (http://www.southwestern.edu/about/schrum-bio.html).

Here is the NACUBO (http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/2006NES_Listing.pdf) document that may give us the Rosetta Stone as to what divides D-III and D-IV.  If you are a tuition-driven institution that needs students to pay the bills, then offering athletics is one way that you can bring students to your institution.  If you are a generously endowed university that can set your price and have students flock to your door, then you don't need "gimmicks" like sports to do this.

D-II has recently released a white paper about the financial impact of partial scholarships.  This tells me that D-II is looking at the other side of this issue.


Division II Partial Scholarship White Paper (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/home?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/Media+and+Events/Press+Room/News+Release+Archive/2008/Announcements/Division+II+Defines+Value+of+Partial+Scholarship+Model)

johnnie_esq, thank you for your continued contributions to understanding the issues in this debate at the highest levels of the NCAA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 28, 2008, 08:46:28 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 27, 2008, 02:39:43 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 27, 2008, 08:36:47 AM
"They" don't want "us" in D-III.

Funny you should mention that. That's exactly what I got when reading this column by Southwestern's president.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/01/18/0118schrum_edit.html

Keep NCAA Division III for those who got there first


I agree with the Southwestern President wholeheartedly.  Leave Division III alone and set up a Division 2.5 (rather than a Division IV) for those that want fewer restrictions or in other words to be more like the Division II schools in terms of regulations.   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on January 28, 2008, 11:58:41 AM
I like that idea too... put anything new in the middle of the present D-II and D-III and once the parameters are set up, let schools migrate into it.  I would think that anyone who wants fewer restrictions and doesn't want the expense of a large number of scholarships would move into this level...

That way D-III stays as it is... which I think is a great model for full student developement... and the "perception" of  moving downward is avoided by not using the tag of Division IV (for anyone).

That may be why these fellows have become presidents becuase they know what they are talking about.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 28, 2008, 12:09:04 PM
Yes, but what he wants sounds exclusionary to me - and many institutions may want to strive for the D-3 ideal and would not be welcome by such rhetoric.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on January 28, 2008, 12:38:46 PM
I really don't get the big fuss over the term d3 or d4...if enough school' s want to go d4, than i think that term has value. Of course, you can play around with alot of names, say d3-aa for the folks that want to move. Or i'm sure they prez of SW types would like to break the ncaa down with, d1, d1-aa, d2, d2-aa, than have d3 for themselves.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on January 28, 2008, 12:46:10 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 27, 2008, 11:51:10 PM
Here is the NACUBO (http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/2006NES_Listing.pdf) document that may give us the Rosetta Stone as to what divides D-III and D-IV.  If you are a tuition-driven institution that needs students to pay the bills, then offering athletics is one way that you can bring students to your institution.  If you are a generously endowed university that can set your price and have students flock to your door, then you don't need "gimmicks" like sports to do this.

Ralph, you have followed DIII much longer than I have and might know the answer to this. I understand the differing philosophies regarding athletics that have created the division among DIII members, but it seems like many of the larger issues between the two groups have come from legislation in the last 5-10 years and not from historical DIII values. Issues such as redshirting and out of season practice, particularly football here in the south, have been curtailed in the last few years by legislation. I have read several presidents mention long-standing DIII values, but haven't many of the topics of debate been enforced in the last decade of competition?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 28, 2008, 08:30:21 PM
Working Group Document (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/Working_Group_Membership_Issues/May_31/sup_b.pdf)

Chris, please start with this 185 page document to see some of the background material.

I don't know what to make of this movement to split.  Even the SCAC is split down the middle on some of the criteria (Trinity, Austin College, Millsaps and OU vs. the rest).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 28, 2008, 08:37:16 PM
If "D-III" and "D-IV" are objectionable to the various members, and there are things that everyone of the 420 members want to accomplish that  are best accomplished in two smaller divisions, then let's philosophically abandon D-III and go to Division names.

The Teddy Roosevelt Division is named after the spiritual founder of the NCAA.  This can include the NCAC, the Centennial, the CCIW and NESCAC schools who have the most stringent voting records.

The Myles Brand Division can be the "D-III" Division that was created under his leadership.  This will be everyone else who doesn't join the "more restrictive" division.

If access ratios to the playoffs are critical at the 1:6.5 level, then we can do this better in the smaller divisions with hitting the limits of 32 and 64!

This is less pejorative (no D-III/no D-IV).

Or D-III Roosevelt and D-III Myles Brand Divisions.  We attempt to solve the semantics of the issue.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 28, 2008, 08:58:02 PM
I suspect that I will never see Myles Brand and Teddy Roosevelt in the same sentence again.  Ralph, you have once again performed the impossible! :D

Of course, 'impossible' and 'desirable' are not necessarily equivalent. ;)

[And this from someone who often supports Myles Brand.]

Cynicism and jokes aside, this is shaping up more and more (IMO) as a battle of elitism and money: "we don't need jocks, you do - go away".  Am I way off base here, or is this pretty close to the truth?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 28, 2008, 09:30:44 PM


So we can call them the "Big Stick" and the "Big Slick" for short?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 28, 2008, 11:40:21 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 28, 2008, 08:58:02 PM
I suspect that I will never see Myles Brand and Teddy Roosevelt in the same sentence again.  Ralph, you have once again performed the impossible! :D

Of course, 'impossible' and 'desirable' are not necessarily equivalent. ;)

[And this from someone who often supports Myles Brand.]

Cynicism and jokes aside, this is shaping up more and more (IMO) as a battle of elitism and money: "we don't need jocks, you do - go away".  Am I way off base here, or is this pretty close to the truth?
I think that it is.  If we look at the football playoffs from the late 1970's and we hear the Hoopsville interview of Wabash head coach Mac Petty, who won the 1982 national championship, then it appears that this is the divide that is re-surfacing.  As a natural course in human events, the rise of competition in athletic endeavors is sullying the pristine fields of academia.

As we go back to 1973, we saw 240 schools who moved to D-III.  I appears that the winnowing process may not have been as thorough as needed, because to go back to 1973 principles may require the "de-selection" of some apostate schools who have left those hallowed principles, as new members have hewn to them.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 28, 2008, 11:49:57 PM
My post of 8:58 could easily be misinterpreted - let me try to clarify.  I'm a retired college educator; I would certainly never favor athletics over academics.  But even though I taught at a d1 school, I can't recall ever seeing a real conflict (of course, I never taught Andy Katzenmoyer! ;D).

In my 30+ years I dealt with (more than) my share of both "jock lovers" and "jock haters" (probably a slight plurality of the latter), but I honestly think the great majority were neither - athletes were students like any other.  I treated athletic (time) conflicts the same as any others - if notified in advance, I'd try to accommodate nearly any problem (including helping a friend move, vet appointments, etc.); if told after the fact the excuses were pretty much limited to emergency surgery or a funeral (their own!).

Despite their protestations to the contrary, the 'vibe' I get from the articles by both the Southwestern and Earlham presidents is that 'really serious' athletes are not students, and 'really serious' students are not athletes.  Also (and probably more pertinent), 'my school is above attracting students through games'.  Well, OK, I wouldn't want to be associated with a school who only used athletic success as a recruitment tool (though I don't know of any that do), but is pride in athletic success somehow a sin?  Properly integrated, athletics is, IMO, a definite plus for a school, and if the faculty can't work around the occasional sports-related absence to still provide a full academic experience, I believe the problem is with the faculty, not the athlete.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 29, 2008, 06:26:46 AM
Alright. If we end up with the Teddy Roosevelt (aka "Roughrider" ) and Myles Brand divisions, then perhaps D1 should be called the "Tarkanian [or "Police Blotter"] Division."  ::)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 29, 2008, 07:40:17 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 28, 2008, 11:49:57 PM
Despite their protestations to the contrary, the 'vibe' I get from the articles by both the Southwestern and Earlham presidents is that 'really serious' athletes are not students, and 'really serious' students are not athletes.  Also (and probably more pertinent), 'my school is above attracting students through games'. 

I think that is correct for the most part.  One has to wonder (or better yet question a school's priorities) if a school significantly uses their athletic department as a quasi admissions office to recruit a significant percentage of any incoming freshmen class.   There are no absolutes here.  It is certainly a question of degree which is what the Southwestern and Earlham Presidents have appeared to have eloquently stated.   Viva La Divisione 2.5 BULLY  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: fcnews on January 29, 2008, 03:11:02 PM
How about moving the state schools up to the much smaller DII?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 29, 2008, 03:21:26 PM
Quote from: fcnews on January 29, 2008, 03:11:02 PM
How about moving the state schools up to the much smaller DII?

Given how successful they've been in D3, the public venues would likely not put up with that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Stinger on January 29, 2008, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: wilburt on January 29, 2008, 07:40:17 AM

One has to wonder (or better yet question a school's priorities) if a school significantly uses their athletic department as a quasi admissions office to recruit a significant percentage of any incoming freshmen class.   Viva La Divisione 2.5 BULLY  ;D

Adrian College....

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/SCHOOLS/704230366
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on January 29, 2008, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: fcnews on January 29, 2008, 03:11:02 PM
How about moving the state schools up to the much smaller DII?

I don't know about others but the NJAC schools could not afford to compete in D-II.  Plus the NJAC or it's predecessor is a founding conference in D-III.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 29, 2008, 03:47:15 PM
Quote from: Stinger on January 29, 2008, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: wilburt on January 29, 2008, 07:40:17 AM

One has to wonder (or better yet question a school's priorities) if a school significantly uses their athletic department as a quasi admissions office to recruit a significant percentage of any incoming freshmen class.   Viva La Divisione 2.5 BULLY  ;D

Adrian College....

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/SCHOOLS/704230366

Bravo for Adrian!  Note from the article that the academic profile of incoming freshmen has risen, as has student retention.  What's not to like?

I could easily foresee how a school could mess things up educationally with such an approach, but clearly Adrian is doing it right.  (+k to Stinger for the find.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2008, 04:02:18 PM
Quote from: Stinger on January 29, 2008, 03:23:55 PM
Quote from: wilburt on January 29, 2008, 07:40:17 AM

One has to wonder (or better yet question a school's priorities) if a school significantly uses their athletic department as a quasi admissions office to recruit a significant percentage of any incoming freshmen class.   Viva La Divisione 2.5 BULLY  ;D

Adrian College....

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/SCHOOLS/704230366
Quod est demonstratum...

You know that old MIAA.  They are notorious for using athletics as a "gimmick" to drive enrollment!   ::)  ;)  (+1 Stinger!)

The MIAA is one of the conferences that the "Southwestern/Earlham Alliance" is counting to join the more restrictive division.

I keep saying this, but where will the Southwestern/Earlham types find the 150 schools that are needed for a viable division?

Furthermore, semantically I object to the appellation of Division 2.5.  Division II is scholarship;  Division III was set up as non-scholarship.  The unifying fact across all 420 schools is the non-scholarship principle!  The MIAA and the NJAC are founding conferences of Division III.  They can claim the heritage for D-III as much as a relative D-III newbie like the Northwest Conference or the American Southwest Conference.

That is why the only solution to the division names is to leave D-III completely.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on January 29, 2008, 04:12:24 PM
One prays that Adrian's doing it "right." (For what it's worth, they've instituted a men's ice hockey program -- currently featuring 17 Canadians -- that's doing quite well.)

At the same time, in recent years, other venues have increased enrollment by non-athletic means.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 29, 2008, 04:41:42 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 29, 2008, 03:21:26 PM
Quote from: fcnews on January 29, 2008, 03:11:02 PM
How about moving the state schools up to the much smaller DII?

Given how successful they've been in D3, the public venues would likely not put up with that.

And why should they. They play by the rules.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on January 29, 2008, 05:37:02 PM
Enjoy this on the link below.. It is a pod cast

http://centennialconference.blogspot.com/2008/01/diii-membership-issues.html

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2008, 06:10:31 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 29, 2008, 04:12:24 PM
One prays that Adrian's doing it "right." (For what it's worth, they've instituted a men's ice hockey program -- currently featuring 17 Canadians -- that's doing quite well.)

At the same time, in recent years, other venues have increased enrollment by non-athletic means.
Hmmm, that is an increase in the number of international students that has statistically impacted the diversity ratios by nationality!  ;)

That is another benefit to the increased emphasis in athletics under the current D-3 model. :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2008, 06:19:17 PM
Quote from: old ends on January 29, 2008, 05:37:02 PM
Enjoy this on the link below.. It is a pod cast.

http://centennialconference.blogspot.com/2008/01/diii-membership-issues.html

Monday with Myles (http://doubleazone.com/audio/20080128mwm.mp3) is the specific podcast.  Thanks and +1!   :)

"First chance to review the proposals?"   ???  Perhaps this was the first chance to respond vociferously to them!

I like the euphemism "deeply engaged" that was used to describe "emotional"!   :D

They are counting on 150-200 schools who want to move in a different direction!

They re-affirm that the Division III members will each determine the course of their respective institutions.  "Nothing is carved in 'Indiana' limestone."  :D

They will re-visit the topic when they have the data from the (February) surveys.  :)

Excellent podcast (http://www.insidehighered.com/var/podcast/media/2008-01-14_ws_ncaafinal.mp3) from insidehighered.com talking with national SAAC members!  (Four stars!!  Thumbs up!)  National branding (D-III), impact on local rivalries, and impact by travel on classroom time are major concerns.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: fcnews on January 29, 2008, 06:45:39 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 29, 2008, 03:21:26 PM
Quote from: fcnews on January 29, 2008, 03:11:02 PM
How about moving the state schools up to the much smaller DII?

Given how successful they've been in D3, the public venues would likely not put up with that.

Given the vast difference in tuition, wouldn't this tend to put things on a level playing field.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2008, 07:37:29 PM
In the insidehighered.com "Growing Pains" article (http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/15/ncaa) I found this quote from President Doug Bennett of Earlham College instructive about the various opportunities (and institutional needs/obligations) of a  D-III student-athlete at Earlham, another college that looks to be "tuition-driven" using the student-athlete model.

QuoteSupport for the Division IV proposal is coming in large part from colleges that advocate a more seasonal approach to athletics.

Doug Bennett, president of Earlham College and president of the North Coast Athletic Conference, has helped lead the charge. He says the philosophical differences among Division III members "make life increasingly awkward."

Bennett disagrees with the assessment that having two distinct groups within a division is healthy. He said in a co-authored letter to the Annapolis Group, a coalition of mostly selective liberal arts colleges, that "experience tells us that relying on conference standards alone is an imperfect solution; particularly in early season competition outside the conference, coaches and athletes want a level playing field and suffer when an opponent has practiced an extra week."

At Earlham, more than 25 percent of the 1,200-some students participate in varsity sports (there are 16 teams in total.) Other colleges in his conference have similar rates of participation. Well over half of students there study abroad, which increases the need for seasonal sports practice and competition.

"We need those same students to be resident advisers, to be in student productions (italics added  -- RT) ," Bennett said. "We want to keep athletics vital, but it's not the only thing students do."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 29, 2008, 09:55:40 PM
Quote from: fcnews on January 29, 2008, 06:45:39 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 29, 2008, 03:21:26 PM
Quote from: fcnews on January 29, 2008, 03:11:02 PM
How about moving the state schools up to the much smaller DII?

Given how successful they've been in D3, the public venues would likely not put up with that.

Given the vast difference in tuition, wouldn't this tend to put things on a level playing field.


Yet, many D-3 schools compete on a cost basis with the privates thanks to financial aid.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 30, 2008, 07:56:50 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2008, 04:02:18 PM
You know that old MIAA.  They are notorious for using athletics as a "gimmick" to drive enrollment!   ::)  ;)  (+1 Stinger!)

"We don't apologize for using athletics as one way to leverage enrollment here," said Adrian President Docking (quote from the Detroit News article you cited Dr. Ralph.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2008, 04:02:18 PM
Furthermore, semantically I object to the appellation of Division 2.5.  Division II is scholarship;  Division III was set up as non-scholarship.  The unifying fact across all 420 schools is the non-scholarship principle!  The MIAA and the NJAC are founding conferences of Division III.  They can claim the heritage for D-III as much as a relative D-III newbie like the Northwest Conference or the American Southwest Conference.

That is why the only solution to the division names is to leave D-III completely.

Ralph, it is clear that another Division should be set up.  The only issue is whether to create a Division IV (for more restrictive schools) or as I have suggested a Division 2.5 (for less restrictive schools).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 30, 2008, 08:31:45 AM
Good morning, Wilburt!  :)

Sorry, if there is any confusion about that quote.  That is exactly what I wanted to convey.  Small liberal arts colleges, that are tuition-driven, are in a fight for their lives.  If they don't have the endowment of a Trinity Tx or a Southwestern (see my NACUBO citation for the 2006 list of endowments), then the number of student-athletes on a campus dramatically impacts the profitability of the institution.  Please look at the NACUBO document and try to figure how much tuition your institution needs to from student-athletes to stay afloat.  Most institutions are only drawing 3-5% of the endowment each year for their selective uses.

Quote from: wilburt on January 30, 2008, 07:56:50 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2008, 04:02:18 PM
You know that old MIAA.  They are notorious for using athletics as a "gimmick" to drive enrollment!   ::)  ;)  (+1 Stinger!)

"We don't apologize for using athletics as one way to leverage enrollment here," said Adrian President Docking (quote from the Detroit Newsarticle you cited Dr. Ralph.)

Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2008, 04:02:18 PM
Furthermore, semantically I object to the appellation of Division 2.5.  Division II is scholarship;  Division III was set up as non-scholarship.  The unifying fact across all 420 schools is the non-scholarship principle!  The MIAA and the NJAC are founding conferences of Division III.  They can claim the heritage for D-III as much as a relative D-III newbie like the Northwest Conference or the American Southwest Conference.

That is why the only solution to the division names is to leave D-III completely.

Ralph, it is clear that another Division should be set up.  The only issue is whether to create a Division IV (for more restrictive schools) or as I have suggested a Division 2.5 (for less restrictive schools).

Have a good day, Wilburt!  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 30, 2008, 08:49:13 AM
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you Ralph.  It appears that the Adrian model has worked for them on many levels.  All I suggested (perhaps in some harsh terms) is that where do you draw the line? Adrian may draw it further than an Earlham.  Or McMurry may draw it further than Adrian. 

As I stated earlier there are no absolutes, it is all a question of degree here.  I am very sensitive to the fact that liberal arts colleges are enrollment/tuition driven for much of their finances.  Fisk University  (my alma mater) is no exception. But at what point do you figuratively sell your soul to the devil in exchange for the all mighty tuition dollar?

You too have an outstanding day my friend...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 30, 2008, 02:28:37 PM
Wilburt, I think much of this furor on the campuses about athletics is an undeserved animus and virulence towards athletics.

Is there any competent president at a D3 college in the country who does not have adequate administrative control over the admissions processes and athletic department at his/her institutions?  Name 'em!

Are there any colleges who are blatantly admitting student-athletes that do not qualify in any way for admission to the colleges at which they play?  Name 'em.  How many articles have we read about the admissions processes at premier institutions that are concerned with trying to get the right mix or the right diversity of students at the university?

Scientifically, are there any randomized double-blind studies that have shown that  student-athletes are statistically incapable of doing the class work at D-3 institution to a p value of 0.05 or better?

If the admissions process at the institution in question does not have checks and balances and "best practices" analyses in place to change admissions procedures when statistical deviations from the norms have been recognized, then why is that the fault of the athlete?

Do I understand the president at Earlham needs his student-athletes to spend less time in athletics and more time as resident-aides or in dramatic productions?

Let's concentrate on principles that enhance the student-athlete experience.

Is the desired access ratio to the playoffs a 1:6.5 ratio?  Is the best and most efficient way to maintain that ratio (in light of growing membership) to move to 2 equal non-scholarship divisions that reflect the respective natures of the member institutions?  The "Roosevelt" and the "Myles Brand" Divisions that are both non-scholarship with separate cultures to the playoffs can work that way.

Can the "Myles Brand" and "Roosevelt" divisions provide the activities that their respective members want with adequate, equal and appropriate levels of funding?

Are the "more restrictive" proponents subconsciously afraid that their model of student-athletics, regardless of its name, will be considered less viable when compared to a less restrictive model, regardless of its name?  That might mean that those Southwestern/Earlham types might see fewer applicants of the quality that they desire.  We have shown that that impacts the bottom line.

I see that there are huge differences.  If we move from the D-III name, but keep D-III non-scholarship principles, then I see the split as helping to grow "D-III" as a concept!  (I also am happy with the post-season competitive opportunities for the ASC versus the rest of the putative members of "less restrictive" conferences.)  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 30, 2008, 03:27:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 30, 2008, 02:28:37 PM
Wilburt, I think much of this furor on the campuses about athletics is an undeserved animus and virulence towards athletics.

I disagree with that Ralph.  The issue is what role do sports play in the larger educational process of any given liberal arts college.  Everyone concedes that they play a role in the educational process and respective college communities. The question again is to what degree?

At what point does a school sell its academic soul for the athletic tuition dollar?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 30, 2008, 03:43:44 PM
I think if Doug Bennett has an issue with Earlham athletes not participating around campus in other activities then he needs to address that problem within his own house.

Around each campus, there are issues with certain groups that don't mesh with the rest of the campus. Athletes always seem to be the lightning rod but there are certainly other campus groups that silo themselves.

What I find funny is still that one of the conferences fitting the D-4 criteria was the WIAC and not the SCAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on January 30, 2008, 03:47:31 PM
Certainly any college alone should have the capacity to draw the line for itself. Why should a college have the right to attempt to draw the line for another college?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on January 30, 2008, 05:04:56 PM
There seems to be a basic assumption that athletic programs are at odds with the goals and objectives of the academic side of the institution.  If you look at most college's mission statement, it will champion the production of the "whole" individual.  Athletics, in the proper light, is a tremendous teaching tool of values.  That should be part of what education is.

Maybe the President of Earlham should be more concerned that his drama production folks aren't spending enough time participating in athletics.   ;D

Until the membership survey is distributed, completed and evaluated, there won't be much to hang one's hat on as far as movement one way or the other.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on January 30, 2008, 08:05:30 PM
Quote from: joehakes on January 30, 2008, 05:04:56 PM
There seems to be a basic assumption that athletic programs are at odds with the goals and objectives of the academic side of the institution.  If you look at most college's mission statement, it will champion the production of the "whole" individual.  Athletics, in the proper light, is a tremendous teaching tool of values.  That should be part of what education is.

Maybe the President of Earlham should be more concerned that his drama production folks aren't spending enough time participating in athletics.   ;D

Until the membership survey is distributed, completed and evaluated, there won't be much to hang one's hat on as far as movement one way or the other.

I think you make some key points here. 

1.) The leaders of the movement are NOT anti-athletics, but they are for the limitation of athletics on their campuses.  If a hockey team plays three games per week, all on the road, meaning the team misses three days of classes, does that fulfill the educational mission of the school?  While this scenario doesn't happen frequently now (though some athletic endeavors aren't too far removed from this), the movement is concerned it will occur.  And experience from the D-I and D-II levels seems to indicate that it is not out of the realm of possibility.

2.) The survey will really tell us what is actually being felt by the institutions.  Until the results come in it is difficult to know if critical mass has been reached or failed to be reached, and what the actual desires for schools are.  Until that data is collected-- likely, in late Spring, nothing can or will happen. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 30, 2008, 08:54:57 PM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on January 30, 2008, 08:05:30 PM
Quote from: joehakes on January 30, 2008, 05:04:56 PM
There seems to be a basic assumption that athletic programs are at odds with the goals and objectives of the academic side of the institution.  If you look at most college's mission statement, it will champion the production of the "whole" individual.  Athletics, in the proper light, is a tremendous teaching tool of values.  That should be part of what education is.

Maybe the President of Earlham should be more concerned that his drama production folks aren't spending enough time participating in athletics.   ;D

Until the membership survey is distributed, completed and evaluated, there won't be much to hang one's hat on as far as movement one way or the other.

I think you make some key points here. 

1.) The leaders of the movement are NOT anti-athletics, but they are for the limitation of athletics on their campuses.  If a hockey team plays three games per week, all on the road, meaning the team misses three days of classes, does that fulfill the educational mission of the school?  While this scenario doesn't happen frequently now (though some athletic endeavors aren't too far removed from this), the movement is concerned it will occur.  And experience from the D-I and D-II levels seems to indicate that it is not out of the realm of possibility.

2.) The survey will really tell us what is actually being felt by the institutions.  Until the results come in it is difficult to know if critical mass has been reached or failed to be reached, and what the actual desires for schools are.  Until that data is collected-- likely, in late Spring, nothing can or will happen. 

Since I do not personally know any of the 'leaders of the movement', I will not speculate as to their motivations (though I have known many in academia are are very 'anti athlethics' and would love to purge 'dumb jocks' [and they meant athletes in general, not the occasional Andy Katzenmoyers] from the 'sacred halls').  But by singling out athletics (even recognizing that a single article can't cover everything, and athletics is the focus here), that conclusion is difficult to avoid.

You omitted comment on Joe's middle paragraph; aside from the 'balance' issue he directly addressed, I think the unstated 'elephant in the room' is that drama (or other extracurriculars) are viewed as more 'worthy' than athletics.  In my 32+ years in academia I encountered more students who reached the verge (or beyond!) of flunking out because of over-emphasis on dramatics, political activism, various campus clubs (or partying, of course, but we won't go there!) than athletics.  In fact, I cannot recall a single student who ever flunked out because of athletics (though several who did so because they ignored their coaches' pleas, ignored the available support services, etc.).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on January 30, 2008, 10:26:59 PM
Mr Y,

That is my point exactly, that athletics is, in many cases, unfairly blamed for a lot of evils.  When was the last time you heard that a party with a bunch of history majors got out of hand?  They sometimes do, but no one would think to identify a group in that way. 

I don't know that people consciously think in these terms, but it is ingrained by tradition on college campuses.  And anyone who has worked on a college campus knows that tradition is the strongest law of all.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on January 31, 2008, 07:49:07 AM
Quote from: joehakes on January 30, 2008, 05:04:56 PM
There seems to be a basic assumption that athletic programs are at odds with the goals and objectives of the academic side of the institution.  If you look at most college's mission statement, it will champion the production of the "whole" individual.  Athletics, in the proper light, is a tremendous teaching tool of values.  That should be part of what education is.

Athletics in the proper light is a tremendous teaching tool.  The issue with Division III is what is the "proper light"?  Are some schools headed in the direction of offering a fine academic program for its athletes, or are they offering a fine athletic program for its students?

To me it's clearly an identity issue with the Presidents.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on January 31, 2008, 08:38:59 AM
This not a DIV III Link, but NCAA got it's hand slapped.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=am9m8LxuCMOA&refer=home

http://www.latimes.com/sports/printedition/la-sp-ncaa31jan31,1,2968923.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

enjoy
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on January 31, 2008, 10:30:20 AM
Quote from: wilburt on January 31, 2008, 07:49:07 AM


Athletics in the proper light is a tremendous teaching tool.  The issue with Division III is what is the "proper light"?  Are some schools headed in the direction of offering a fine academic program for its athletes, or are they offering a fine athletic program for its students?

To me it's clearly an identity issue with the Presidents.

To me it seems that a President would have to be pretty narrow minded to not try to figure out how to combine the two.

As to what Mr. Yspi said above about students flunking out due too outside activities, I agree.  I have first hand experience as a music major how much time these plays and other artistict endeavors take.  There is a reason that some drama, art and music majors take five or six years to graduate.  I personally had to withdraw from some classes because I could dedicate the time to them.  This was especially true for the spring semester when we did out yearly musical.  Pit band takes a lot of time, add a week of performances, including two a day for three days and it can hurt you.  I also had the misfortune of having a couple of professors who thought their mid level elective classes were more important than my major.  Luckily at NJCU the administration supports the arts and the athletic program.  They do a very good job of providing an atmosphere where students are exposed to and get to participate in many different experiences.

They may be a small underfunded state liberal arts university that does not have Ivy like admission standards, but they do a very good job of fulfilling their mission.  They provide a reasonably affordable quality educational experience to their recruiting base, many of who are the first generation in their family to attend college, or to attend college in this country.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 31, 2008, 07:16:46 PM
wilburt,

I understand what you are saying (or at least I think I do), but I honestly don't see the conflict UNLESS the 'powers that be' really do think atletics is 'lesser' than other chosen pursuits.  I taught at a 'lesser' d1 (Eastern Michigan, about as lesser as you can go in football, though it had it's times in the top 25 in basketball, and dominated the MAC in swimming and track, and once placed second in the country in baseball).  While I believe the problem exists at a few 'elite' athletic programs, I never saw it at EMU (athletes were students; students were athletes).

When the Earlham president's column first came out, I posted that I saw Archibald MacLeish's J.B. with QB Henne, AA OL Jake Long (and I forgot to include all-Big 10 DB Jamarr Adams) in the cast.  This was soon after the 'debacle' against App. St. and the 'stomping' by Oregon St. and several letters to the editor angrily questioned why they hadn't been studying game films - to UM's credit, they totally ignored those morons.  If such 'elite' athletes in a multi-million dollar athletic program can have a 'well-rounded' experience (with no repercussions from coaches), I question whether there is really any problem (except in the minds of presidents, or others, who question the merit of athletics in an academic setting).

Other than the unwieldy size of d3, are we really dealing with a problem, or a problem premised on bias against athletics?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2008, 12:10:20 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 27, 2008, 03:18:56 PM
Yikes!  The presidents of Southwestern and Earlham certainly seem "two peas in a pod", but the pod apparently doesn't hold 148 more peas!

Succinctly and elegantly put, Chuck.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2008, 12:20:22 AM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on January 29, 2008, 03:21:26 PM
Quote from: fcnews on January 29, 2008, 03:11:02 PM
How about moving the state schools up to the much smaller DII?

Given how successful they've been in D3, the public venues would likely not put up with that.

Plus, the whole philosophy behind the NCAA is that it is a voluntary organization whose member schools self-select their level of competition. The NCAA can no more force UW-Stevens Point and Rowan to join D2 than it can force Rice or Vanderbilt to go D3. Every school chooses in what division it wishes to place its membership.

Quote from: joehakes on January 30, 2008, 10:26:59 PMThat is my point exactly, that athletics is, in many cases, unfairly blamed for a lot of evils.  When was the last time you heard that a party with a bunch of history majors got out of hand?

Joe, on behalf of myself and the other history and English majors under your charge who found ways to be surreptitiously "out of hand" when you were the resident director of Burgh Hall during your North Park days, we thank you in retrospect for your misplaced trust in our geeky inoffensiveness. :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on February 01, 2008, 08:16:10 AM
I had never lived in a dorm before and they put me in charge??  I had no clue of what the English, history, chemistry, you-name-it majors were doing. But any time an athlete acted up I heard about it.

Anything you want to confess, Greg?  I think that the statute of limitations is long gone on those days.  :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on February 01, 2008, 08:24:10 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 31, 2008, 07:16:46 PM
wilburt,

I understand what you are saying (or at least I think I do), but I honestly don't see the conflict UNLESS the 'powers that be' really do think atletics is 'lesser' than other chosen pursuits. 
****
Other than the unwieldy size of d3, are we really dealing with a problem, or a problem premised on bias against athletics?

Well let me just say this. I think to a certain extent that the "powers that be" do think that athletics is lesser than other chosen pursuits.   As I have stated before what is the proper role of athletics in a college community?

Given that 99.5% of Division III athletes know they are not going to be professional athletes, but they will more than likely become "professionals" in their academic related endeavors (ie biologist, chemist, engineer, actors, educators) and for those who choose to go on to graduate or professional school (doctors, lawyers, PhDs etc.)  If that is the case, then why do we need "redshirting" all of a sudden in Division III?  Why do we need extended seasons (practice or otherwise) in some sports for Division III?  Are these schools trying to enhance the athlete's athletic experience under the guise of trying to become more competitive in Division III competition? If so, to what purpose?  Is it as Ralph argues to compete for the athletic tuition dollar?

I am not talking about isolated examples that you point out and others at various colleges where student-athletes are getting a well rounded college experience. I am talking about the "overall direction" of Division III that has many College Presidents concerned that Division III is sliding down a slippery slope towards a Division 2.5.

I say this as a former Division III athlete from the 1980s. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2008, 09:04:50 AM
Good morning, Wilburt,
Please give us some specifics.

Quote from: wilburt on February 01, 2008, 08:24:10 AM

Well let me just say this. I think to a certain extent that the "powers that be" do think that athletics is lesser than other chosen pursuits.   As I have stated before what is the proper role of athletics in a college community?

Given that 99.5% of Division III athletes know they are not going to be professional athletes, but they will more than likely become "professionals" in their academic related endeavors (ie biologist, chemist, engineer, actors, educators) and for those who choose to go on to graduate or professional school (doctors, lawyers, PhDs etc.)  If that is the case, then why do we need "redshirting" all of a sudden in Division III?

Currently in the D-III of 2008, "redshirting" is not practiced.  The conference which seems to have been impacted most by this decision is the WIAC.  They are a putative "D-IV" by voting patterns, just like the MWC, the Centennial, the NCAC and the CCIW.

Quote from: wilburt on February 01, 2008, 08:24:10 AM
Why do we need extended seasons (practice or otherwise) in some sports for Division III?

Which season is too long for your liking now, in the D-III of 2008? How many weeks, how many games and how many playoff bids do you propose to cut?  Concerning playoff bids, the current playoff bid ratio is 1:6.5 so as to allow more Pooll C bids.  Do you wish to eliminate all Pool C bids?  (The D-IV's are complaining about how big the playoffs are with respect to bracket size since increasing the number of playoff bids in 2005-06.  I have not heard one "D-IV" president advocate cutting the access ratio, i.e., the number of bids, to the playoffs.)


Quote from: wilburt on February 01, 2008, 08:24:10 AM
Are these schools trying to enhance the athlete's athletic experience under the guise of trying to become more competitive in Division III competition? If so, to what purpose?  Is it as Ralph argues to compete for the athletic tuition dollar?

Let me re-focus the last question.  In Adrian's case and the case of so many other schools, it is the "tuition dollars" of students who wish to continue in D-III athletics.  "Half" of these are women, for which intercollegiate athletics as we see now did not exist in my days at college, pre-Title IX.  In Michigan, they can go to Eastern Michigan and not compete in non-scholarship intercollegiate athletics, or they can go to Adrian and "do D-III".  That is expanding choices for students.

Quote from: wilburt on February 01, 2008, 08:24:10 AM
I am not talking about isolated examples that you point out and others at various colleges where student-athletes are getting a well rounded college experience. I am talking about the "overall direction" of Division III that has many College Presidents concerned that Division III is sliding down a slippery slope towards a Division 2.5.

I say this as a former Division III athlete from the 1980s. 
Thank you for your responses.  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on February 01, 2008, 09:31:28 AM
Wilburt,

By the same token, if an oboe player knows that they are not going to be a professional musician, should they be allowed to play the oboe in the studio as much as they want?  I am not an advocate for unlimited playing and practice seasons, but I do think (based on 28 years in college athletics) that there are some double standards being applied.

If athletics is such a wonderful thing that teaches character and values, then why do we limit it so much?  It is the balance that is important, not the imbalance.  Again, I have voted for legislation that is considered "restrictive" because it has been the right choice.  But there are some facets of this that we really need to look at with patient and logical eyes. 

One of the very difficult tasks that coaches and athletic administrators have is be able to find ways to be successful in all phases of our interaction with student-athletes.  Winning should be a primary program goal, but so should the development of students for the future in parallel with the mission of the particular instituton.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 01, 2008, 10:20:12 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2008, 09:04:50 AM
Good morning, Wilburt,
Please give us some specifics.

Quote from: wilburt on February 01, 2008, 08:24:10 AM

Well let me just say this. I think to a certain extent that the "powers that be" do think that athletics is lesser than other chosen pursuits.   As I have stated before what is the proper role of athletics in a college community?

Given that 99.5% of Division III athletes know they are not going to be professional athletes, but they will more than likely become "professionals" in their academic related endeavors (ie biologist, chemist, engineer, actors, educators) and for those who choose to go on to graduate or professional school (doctors, lawyers, PhDs etc.)  If that is the case, then why do we need "redshirting" all of a sudden in Division III?

Currently in the D-III of 2008, "redshirting" is not practiced.  The conference which seems to have been impacted most by this decision is the WIAC.  They are a putative "D-IV" by voting patterns, just like the MWC, the Centennial, the NCAC and the CCIW.

It could be argued that one of the conferences most affected by the redshirt rule has been the NWC.  Two of its members that practiced the routine redshirt were dominant in football in the late 1990s and early 2000s and have fallen back to mediocrity since (PLU anyone?  Linfield?).  While both have strong programs and will adjust, this transition has clearly hurt their competitiveness in the game. 

The WIAC should be most affected by the redshirt rule, but there is an internal conflict in that conference between the ADs and the campus Chancellors.  By way of note, the Chancellors were the ones that voted for that reform.


Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2008, 09:04:50 AM
Quote from: wilburt on February 01, 2008, 08:24:10 AM
Why do we need extended seasons (practice or otherwise) in some sports for Division III?

Which season is too long for your liking now, in the D-III of 2008? How many weeks, how many games and how many playoff bids do you propose to cut?  Concerning playoff bids, the current playoff bid ratio is 1:6.5 so as to allow more Pooll C bids.  Do you wish to eliminate all Pool C bids?  (The D-IV's are complaining about how big the playoffs are with respect to bracket size since increasing the number of playoff bids in 2005-06.  I have not heard one "D-IV" president advocate cutting the access ratio, i.e., the number of bids, to the playoffs.)

The problem is that there is a push to extend the season through off-season practice and allowing extra games.  Some conferences limit these-- the MIAC and MWC, for example-- and the argument on the flip side is why should their competitiveness be hurt on the national stage because they want their athletes to concentrate on other things once the playing season is over?

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2008, 09:04:50 AM
Quote from: wilburt on February 01, 2008, 08:24:10 AM
Are these schools trying to enhance the athlete's athletic experience under the guise of trying to become more competitive in Division III competition? If so, to what purpose?  Is it as Ralph argues to compete for the athletic tuition dollar?

Let me re-focus the last question.  In Adrian's case and the case of so many other schools, it is the "tuition dollars" of students who wish to continue in D-III athletics.  "Half" of these are women, for which intercollegiate athletics as we see now did not exist in my days at college, pre-Title IX.  In Michigan, they can go to Eastern Michigan and not compete in non-scholarship intercollegiate athletics, or they can go to Adrian and "do D-III".  That is expanding choices for students.
Agreed as far as student choice, but that is merely restating the question.  The more interesting aspect is institutional choice for their educational component.  Are these institutions allowing athletics to drive the academic bus by being so tuition dependent on athletics?  If so, is that the mission of the school?  That question is the one that is the key one for this debate.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on February 01, 2008, 10:41:53 AM
Quote from: wilburt on February 01, 2008, 08:24:10 AMGiven that 99.5% of Division III athletes know they are not going to be professional athletes, but they will more than likely become "professionals" in their academic related endeavors (ie biologist, chemist, engineer, actors, educators) and for those who choose to go on to graduate or professional school (doctors, lawyers, PhDs etc.)  If that is the case, then why do we need "redshirting" all of a sudden in Division III? 

The redshirting topic seems to come up a lot in the discussion of Division III's membership issues, but I have to believe the list of current D3 schools that would like to implement the practice is very small.  Private schools dominate D3's membership and I just don't see how redshirting is feasible at a private school (based on the cost).

Redshirting seems like a non-factor to me in this whole debate.  Am I wrong?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on February 01, 2008, 11:09:08 AM
1. Ralph:  Johnnie_esq has given you responses better than I could given the time frame that I have to do so.  His concluding statement echoes/emphasizes what I have being trying to say all along:

Are these institutions allowing athletics to drive the academic bus by being so tuition dependent on athletics?  If so, is that the mission of the school?  That question is the one that is the key one for this debate.

2. An example may be Maryville College in Tennessee.  In a 2006 article the Maryville AD says that 50% of any incoming class are athletes.   

http://www.thedailytimes.com/article/20061227/SPORTS/612270306

"The college is enrollment driven. Our budget each year is determined each year by the number of full time students," Maryville College athletic director Randy Lambert said of the $1.2 million portion of that budget that athletics spent for the 2005-06 fiscal year. "Other than tuition-paying students we're not going to generate much income. Athletic recruiting contributes close to 50 percent of our annual freshman class. If our incoming class last fall was 300 students we're bringing in close to 150 of those. That justifies athletics and our existence on campus within itself."

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on February 01, 2008, 11:58:11 AM
Quote from: wilburt on February 01, 2008, 08:24:10 AM
If that is the case, then why do we need "redshirting" all of a sudden in Division III?  Why do we need extended seasons (practice or otherwise) in some sports for Division III?  Are these schools trying to enhance the athlete's athletic experience under the guise of trying to become more competitive in Division III competition? If so, to what purpose?  Is it as Ralph argues to compete for the athletic tuition dollar?

Just a couple things I am not understanding regarding redshirting and extended seasons and the history of each in Division III. Both were changed "all of a sudden" in 2003 by the Division III Presidents' Council. Why was that necessary then? We are not talking about longstanding DIII principles. A lot of the current topics of debate have arisen from legislation passed in the last five years trying to diminish the role of athletics.

What is wrong with trying to become more competitive? What endeavor does anyone venture into not trying to be as successful as possible. Can we even fathom an administrator telling an educator that there is a level of success that is too much, which is in essence what some want to do with athletics. And what is wrong with bringing in athletic dollars if it positively affects academics, the institution and the individual? I think some of the rhetoric needs to be simplified in this discussion because we miss the point.

I just do not understand why we have to diminish the role of athletics to feel good about the quality of our academics. It is hard not to think that many of the topics of debate are more concerned with the amount of money invested into athletics rather than the status of academics. The Division III split will be a good thing, however, if some really believe supporting athletics diminishes academics. It would be nice to belong to a non-scholarship division that can see the benefits of both and support each accordingly.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on February 01, 2008, 12:21:16 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 01, 2008, 11:58:11 AMWhat is wrong with trying to become more competitive?

Well nothing, unless those things aimed at increasing athletic competitiveness come at the expense of the student, or the school's educational mission.  Redshirting is one of those things in my opinion.  You take an average incoming college freshman and ask him to take 5 years to complete 4 years of course work, simply because athletically he's not ready to compete as a freshman.  To me, redshirting is the perfect example of a practice that falls outside of the spirit of Division III.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on February 01, 2008, 12:28:42 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 01, 2008, 12:21:16 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 01, 2008, 11:58:11 AMWhat is wrong with trying to become more competitive?

Well nothing, unless those things aimed at increasing athletic competitiveness come at the expense of the student, or the school's educational mission.  Redshirting is one of those things in my opinion.  You take an average incoming college freshman and ask him to take 5 years to complete 4 years of course work, simply because athletically he's not ready to compete as a freshman.  To me, redshirting is the perfect example of a practice that falls outside of the spirit of Division III.

First of all, why does everyone assume that striving to become more competitve in athletics comes at the expense of a student or is not exactly in line with the institution. There are examples of schools doing that, but they are far outnumbered by institutions who do it the right way.

Also, I would not assume that every coach pushes redshirting on anyone at this level. I think you would find that the vast majority of student-athletes would like the option themselves to choose from. Student-athletes take their athletic careers very seriously, they invest far too much of their time into it not to be. A huge majority of them would trade a freshman season where they did not contribute for one more season to be successful. The student-athletes are the ones affected by these decisions but I don't see much concern for their input.

Right now, the only option available to them is to sit out a full year without coaching or instruction in order to not burn a year of eligibility and are forced to improve themselves alone. I personally think that is more damaging than having them able to practice with coaches and supported by the structure provided by the team.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 01, 2008, 01:13:42 PM
At several D-3 institutions, though, there really is no red-shirting option because the academic programs are designed for 'four years and out'.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on February 01, 2008, 01:28:17 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 01, 2008, 01:13:42 PM
At several D-3 institutions, though, there really is no red-shirting option because the academic programs are designed for 'four years and out'.

Smedingy, I understand that completely. But I still don't think the decision should be taken out of the hands of the student-athlete. Individual institutions can choose not to allow it if necessary, giving student-athletes an option to attend elsewhere if need be.

But for the record, I love the Division III philosophy of non-scholarship athletics. But I think there has been a move in Division III the last five years to change the Division III philosophy with many legislative changes to lessen the importance of athletics and we inch closer to intramural athletics with each one.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2008, 01:59:11 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 01, 2008, 01:28:17 PM
...
But for the record, I love the Division III philosophy of non-scholarship athletics. But I think there has been a move in Division III the last five years to change the Division III philosophy with many legislative changes to lessen the importance of athletics and we inch closer to intramural athletics with each one.
Chris, I think that you have suggested an interesting change in D-III with your assessment of the legislation.

I think that the last two groups of "strong institutions" to join D-III were the NWC and the ASC.  IMHO, the majority of the independents that have joined piece-meal since then have not been as strong as those two conferences.

The brutal truth about college economics is that 80% of Division III private schools are tuition driven.  If the colleges don't hit their targets for enrollment (and retention of those student-athletes whether they are engaged in athetics beyond their first year or not), there are catastrophic budget implications.

Please refer to the NACUBO (http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/2006NES_Listing.pdf) enodowment document and find your school.

I cannot stress this enough as to the economics that face the Maryville's, the McMurry's, and even the Earlham's, and possibly the Sewanee's.

If your school's endowment is over $200M, and your proportion of "athletes to total student body" is less than 10%, then you can probably de-emphasize athletics in manner that some would want.

However, the budget implications of another 1-2% increase in the student body is tremendous.  (Two per cent improvement in enrollment/retention on 1500 students is 30 students at conservatively $13,000 per year provides another $390,000 per year!  On a $20,000,000 annual budget, that is almost 2%.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2008, 02:01:42 PM
Quote from: wilburt on February 01, 2008, 11:09:08 AM
1. Ralph:  Johnnie_esq has given you responses better than I could given the time frame that I have to do so.  His concluding statement echoes/emphasizes what I have being trying to say all along:

Are these institutions allowing athletics to drive the academic bus by being so tuition dependent on athletics?  If so, is that the mission of the school?  That question is the one that is the key one for this debate.

2. An example may be Maryville College in Tennessee.  In a 2006 article the Maryville AD says that 50% of any incoming class are athletes.   

http://www.thedailytimes.com/article/20061227/SPORTS/612270306

"The college is enrollment driven. Our budget each year is determined each year by the number of full time students," Maryville College athletic director Randy Lambert said of the $1.2 million portion of that budget that athletics spent for the 2005-06 fiscal year. "Other than tuition-paying students we're not going to generate much income. Athletic recruiting contributes close to 50 percent of our annual freshman class. If our incoming class last fall was 300 students we're bringing in close to 150 of those. That justifies athletics and our existence on campus within itself."

Wilburt, thanks.   :)

The role of the institution is to help the portion of those 150 athletes who cannot compete at the D-III level to enjoy the educational experience that they find at Maryville!  I re-emphasize that role of the D-III institution as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on February 01, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 01, 2008, 12:28:42 PM
First of all, why does everyone assume that striving to become more competitve in athletics comes at the expense of a student or is not exactly in line with the institution. There are examples of schools doing that, but they are far outnumbered by institutions who do it the right way.

My experience with redshirting is that Player X comes to campus 6-7/190 and is asked to spend a year becoming 6-7/205, so as a "redshirt freshman" he's ready to compete, and by the time he's an upperclassmen he's a real beast.  The decision has absolutely zero to do with academics.  It seems like a situation where an athletic decision is completely driving what should be an academic situation.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on February 01, 2008, 04:12:53 PM
But what if the "kid" graduates in four years and... 1) stays to get a post graduate degree while participating in athletics during that fifth year? or 2) he just moves on with his life as most others who graduate do?

Aren't both of those positives?

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on February 01, 2008, 04:19:47 PM
Quote from: Bob Maxwell on February 01, 2008, 04:12:53 PM
But what if the "kid" graduates in four years and... 1) stays to get a post graduate degree while participating in athletics during that fifth year? or 2) he just moves on with his life as most others who graduate do?

Aren't both of those positives?



Absolutely.  If that happens, it's very positive.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 01, 2008, 04:42:57 PM
Quote from: Bob Maxwell on February 01, 2008, 04:12:53 PM
But what if the "kid" graduates in four years and... 1) stays to get a post graduate degree while participating in athletics during that fifth year? or 2) he just moves on with his life as most others who graduate do?

Aren't both of those positives?




How many D-3 institutions have post-graduate work available?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2008, 05:00:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 01, 2008, 04:42:57 PM
Quote from: Bob Maxwell on February 01, 2008, 04:12:53 PM
But what if the "kid" graduates in four years and... 1) stays to get a post graduate degree while participating in athletics during that fifth year? or 2) he just moves on with his life as most others who graduate do?

Aren't both of those positives?
How many D-3 institutions have post-graduate work available?
The highest profile student-athlete in the ASC most recently was HSU QB Jordan Neel who stretched his career over 6 seasons.   ;)

Actually, any D-3 that has a master's program should be considered.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 01, 2008, 05:05:30 PM
Right, but what number of D-3 schools have that as an option.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 01, 2008, 05:05:37 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 01, 2008, 04:42:57 PM
Quote from: Bob Maxwell on February 01, 2008, 04:12:53 PM
But what if the "kid" graduates in four years and... 1) stays to get a post graduate degree while participating in athletics during that fifth year? or 2) he just moves on with his life as most others who graduate do?

Aren't both of those positives?




How many D-3 institutions have post-graduate work available?

The MIAC alone has several (St. Mary's, St. Thomas, Bethel, Augsburg, St. John's and Hamline) that have graduate programs, but as a conference, the MIAC does not allow graduate students to compete in intercollegiate athletics by the member institutions.

I believe all WIAC institutions also have graduate programs also. 

A general rule of thumb is to look for D-3 schools with "University" in their name, since the historical connotation of that term was that it awards graduate degrees.  That has changed, but it is at least a chance to briefly survey on that data.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 01, 2008, 05:07:55 PM
I know St. Thomas is trying to take over the Twin Cities, but many of the smaller liberal arts colleges in the east and midwest do not have a grad school or continuing education option for most all of their students.

So I can see why red-shirting wouldn't be allowed.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 01, 2008, 05:40:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 01, 2008, 05:07:55 PM
I know St. Thomas is trying to take over the Twin Cities, but many of the smaller liberal arts colleges in the east and midwest do not have a grad school or continuing education option for most all of their students.

So I can see why red-shirting wouldn't be allowed.

In my opinion, it has more to do with the custom and program in the school than the true economics of it.  For example, the NWC, a recent NAIA conference, had several schools with redshirting practices, though the conference was very similar in schools as the MIAC or the SCIAC.  While the cost appears to be prohibitive for many people in order to do it, SJU seems to have an awful lot of students who manage to use the medical redshirt for a fifth year of competition.

Keep in mind that sometimes students will take off the spring semester of their fourth year and then come back for a fifth year in the fall, graduating that December.  There's an easy way to keep the economics working for the student without doing a whole year.  That only works for one-semester sports, though-- football and baseball, for example.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 01, 2008, 05:43:27 PM
Some schools allow that - many others don't. Graduation is in May, period.

Most all D-1 schools have plenty of opportunities for a student to take a 5th year, same with D-2. Many D-3 institutions don't so I can definitely see why a ban on non-medical redshirting is in place.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on February 01, 2008, 05:49:12 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 01, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
The decision has absolutely zero to do with academics.  It seems like a situation where an athletic decision is completely driving what should be an academic situation.

Titan, if we really applied that rule there would be no athletics in Division III, because the decision to participate in athletics for a student-athlete has absolutely nothing to do with academics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2008, 10:23:57 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2008, 05:00:45 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 01, 2008, 04:42:57 PM
Quote from: Bob Maxwell on February 01, 2008, 04:12:53 PM
But what if the "kid" graduates in four years and... 1) stays to get a post graduate degree while participating in athletics during that fifth year? or 2) he just moves on with his life as most others who graduate do?

Aren't both of those positives?
How many D-3 institutions have post-graduate work available?
The highest profile student-athlete in the ASC most recently was HSU QB Jordan Neel who stretched his career over 6 seasons.   ;)

Actually, any D-3 that has a master's program should be considered.

It's more than a matter of whether or not a school has a master's program or programs. It's what master's program or programs the school offers that often makes a difference. If your school only offers a master's in a religion-related field such as divinity or biblical studies, chances are slim that your postgraduate menu will be useful to many of your potential fifth-year athletes. Similarly, if all your school offers in terms of a master's degree is an M.B.A., and your star forward or your all-conference quarterback is looking at using his fourth year of eligibility in a postgraduate setting -- but he's a future teacher, and you don't offer an M.A.Ed. program -- then you're not going to get him to use that fourth year of eligibility at your school.

This isn't simply a theoretical discussion. There's currently a prominent CCIW athlete, whose name and school shall remain nameless, who stands to graduate in May but who has a potential extra year of eligibility to use if he so chooses. One question as to whether or not he'll use it, however, has to do with whether or not his school has a postgraduate program that is pertinent to his future career field.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2008, 10:30:11 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 01, 2008, 05:49:12 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 01, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
The decision has absolutely zero to do with academics.  It seems like a situation where an athletic decision is completely driving what should be an academic situation.

Titan, if we really applied that rule there would be no athletics in Division III, because the decision to participate in athletics for a student-athlete has absolutely nothing to do with academics.

Chris, a key issue that was behind the drive to eliminate non-medical redshirting in D3 was fairness. It's much, much easier to get a student-athlete to agree to redshirt, and thus adopt a five-year academic track from the outset, when he or she is paying the comparatively low tuition of a state school. As Titan Q said, the cost of adopting that five-year academic track from the outset is usually prohibitive for a student-athlete at a private school. That's why the D3 conference that, more than any other, used non-medical redshirts (and quite successfully) before they were outlawed was the WIAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on February 01, 2008, 11:48:16 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 01, 2008, 10:30:11 PM
Chris, a key issue that was behind the drive to eliminate non-medical redshirting in D3 was fairness. It's much, much easier to get a student-athlete to agree to redshirt, and thus adopt a five-year academic track from the outset, when he or she is paying the comparatively low tuition of a state school. As Titan Q said, the cost of adopting that five-year academic track from the outset is usually prohibitive for a student-athlete at a private school. That's why the D3 conference that, more than any other, used non-medical redshirts (and quite successfully) before they were outlawed was the WIAC.

I really do understand that, but I don't like to see the redshirting discussion brought up as if it is a longstanding staple of Division III. But at some point it has to be the responsibility of each institution to decide if they want to be successful, you can only legislate fairness to a certain point. In my opinion, the redshirting issue negatively affected student-athletes in order to help out some institutions.  I never like to see student-athletes lose opportunities.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 02, 2008, 12:31:07 PM
I think it hasn't affected that many student athletes and there are more institutions in D-3 that would find it hard to redshirt, if not impossible, than not.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on February 02, 2008, 12:53:59 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 01, 2008, 01:59:11 PM
I cannot stress this enough as to the economics that face the Maryville's, the McMurry's, and even the Earlham's, and possibly the Sewanee's.

If your school's endowment is over $200M, and your proportion of "athletes to total student body" is less than 10%, then you can probably de-emphasize athletics in manner that some would want.

Yes you have stressed it enough Ralph, but the financial justifications you profusely argue to justify it does not necessarily make it the right direction to head towards in the eyes of many College Presidents. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on February 02, 2008, 01:04:46 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 01, 2008, 05:49:12 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 01, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
The decision has absolutely zero to do with academics.  It seems like a situation where an athletic decision is completely driving what should be an academic situation.

Titan, if we really applied that rule there would be no athletics in Division III, because the decision to participate in athletics for a student-athlete has absolutely nothing to do with academics.

Has Division III sunk to that level where the decision for many to participate in sports is independent of academics?  This problem is worse than I thought.   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on February 02, 2008, 01:39:55 PM
Quote from: Chris Brooks on February 01, 2008, 05:49:12 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 01, 2008, 03:16:00 PM
The decision has absolutely zero to do with academics.  It seems like a situation where an athletic decision is completely driving what should be an academic situation.

Titan, if we really applied that rule there would be no athletics in Division III, because the decision to participate in athletics for a student-athlete has absolutely nothing to do with academics.

Chris, can you clarify what you mean?  Are you saying Division III student athletes select schools based on athletics alone?

I want to make sure I understand your point before responding.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on February 02, 2008, 03:05:18 PM
If this keeps up at this pace (where athletics are emphasized) don't many Division III schools know they are sliding down as slippery slope.  In time they will inadvertantly becoming like those "prep academies" that cater to athlete-student.  What's the tipping point?  Will the day come when an incoming freshman class has 75% of the class as student-athletes as opposed to 50% like Maryville?  Where does it all end?   All for the $$$$! 

See link below to NY Times article on those type of prep schools tha the NCAA has been slow to regulate. 

www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/sports/ncaabasketball/25preps.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on February 02, 2008, 03:55:49 PM
Quote from: wilburt on February 02, 2008, 03:05:18 PM
If this keeps up at this pace (where athletics are emphasized) don't many Division III schools know they are sliding down as slippery slope.  In time they will inadvertantly becoming like those "prep academies" that cater to athlete-student.  What's the tipping point?  Will the day come when an incoming freshman class has 75% of the class as student-athletes as opposed to 50% like Maryville?  Where does it all end?   All for the $$$$! 

See link below to NY Times article on those type of prep schools tha the NCAA has been slow to regulate. 

www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/sports/ncaabasketball/25preps.html

That is a stretch, wilburt.  It's one thing for a university to use athletics as a way to attract potential students -- students who meet the school's academic requirements, and students who will leave a with a valuable degree.  It is another to operate a Division I athletics developmental academy and call it a "prep school." 

A good friend of mine has a daughter who is a 17-year-old high school senior in central Illinois.  She is a terrific student and also a sprinter on the track team.  She is currently weighing her college options between four finalists - U. of Missouri, U. of Illinois, Augustana, and Illinois Wesleyan.  The appeal of the two D3 schools to her is the chance to continue participating in track, which she can't do at the two huge state schools she is considering.  She knows she won't be a track star in college (even at the D3 level), but she enjoys it.

I certainly don't think Augustana and Illinois Wesleyan are doing anything wrong by using the opportunity to participate in intercollegiate athletics as a selling point in attracting a high-caliber student.  These two NCAA Division III schools are not "catering" to an athlete but simply leveraging their athletic programs in support of their overall mission.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on February 02, 2008, 04:09:33 PM
Here is a link to a feature ESPN did on Division III basketball two seasons ago, featuring Lincoln and Illinois Wesleyan...

http://europa.iwu.edu:8080/ramgen/news/IWU_on_ESPN.rm

(This is from IWU's site and it just includes the IWU portions.)

There are a lot of great points about the differences between Division I and Division III.  The piece also includes interviews with a couple players, including Keelan Amelianovich ('06).  Amelianovich found Illinois Wesleyan 100% due to basketball, but he also had impeccable high school credentials.  He was named the 2006 College Division Academic All-American of the Year.

I certainly won't apologize for my alma mater finding a first class student-athlete like Keelan Amelianovich via athletic channels.  That is happening all over Division III and it is a very healthy thing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on February 02, 2008, 05:14:47 PM
Why does any college need the NCAA to help it make decisions about its operation, including decisions about admissions, scheduling of athletic opponents or other extra-curricular opportunities for its student body?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: golden_dome on February 02, 2008, 05:23:36 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on February 02, 2008, 01:39:55 PM
Chris, can you clarify what you mean?  Are you saying Division III student athletes select schools based on athletics alone?

I want to make sure I understand your point before responding.  Thanks.

Titan, thanks for letting me clarify first, I see another meaning in that post now. I just meant that the decision to participate in athletics is not directly for the benefit of academics, wherever you attend school. You end up spending hours out of the classroom on the road, which one could argue would adversely affect academics. I believe that athletic participation can indirectly benefit academics for a student-athlete, but I'm sure that is not part of the decision to play.

I definitely did not intend to insinuate students should choose schools for athletics alone, without regard for academics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Spence on February 02, 2008, 07:34:10 PM
The Adrian example is just the scenario I forsee some D-II schools pursuing if D-III is split into more and less restrictive separate entities.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on February 03, 2008, 11:10:33 AM
I think alot of D1 school's use a type of the adrian example to get students, ie use athletics as a marketing thing to attract students...in the d1 case its not to give them a chance to play which is the adrian case but rather getting the school exposure. For instance, i think when northwestern went to the rose bowl in the mid-90's, their applications went way up, ditto any team that makes it to the final four. Heck, you probably could make the case duke basketball made that school a top five academic institution...going back 20-30 years, there probably wasn't much of a difference between duke and vanderbilt or emory but those school's haven't had the athletic success duke found on the bball court. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 03, 2008, 03:29:51 PM
I know that both Marquette and George Mason saw huge jumps in their applications after their recent Final Four runs.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on February 03, 2008, 03:56:11 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 03, 2008, 03:29:51 PM
I know that both Marquette and George Mason saw huge jumps in their applications after their recent Final Four runs.

If applications spike because of athletic success, that perhaps says something about the values priorities of the applicants ....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NEPAFAN on February 03, 2008, 04:09:34 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on February 03, 2008, 03:56:11 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 03, 2008, 03:29:51 PM
I know that both Marquette and George Mason saw huge jumps in their applications after their recent Final Four runs.

If applications spike because of athletic success, that perhaps says something about the values priorities of the applicants ....


Maybe, maybe Not. More athletic success = more press. Perhaps said applicants were not aware of Mason or Marquette prior to their success.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 03, 2008, 11:00:23 PM
I'd say it was the exposure, especially for George Mason. It's a pretty unheralded school sitting near DC with so many powerhouses nearby.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 04, 2008, 09:27:22 AM
It happens closer to home than you may think.  SJU had a spike in applications after its Stagg Bowl win also; and I think UWW would say the same thing. 

In SJU's case the free exposure on the Twin Cities media certainly helped introduce candidates to the school, but remember that males tend to matriculate in far greater numbers to schools with football teams.  And when you have a successful football team, well, everyone likes a winner.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on February 07, 2008, 10:21:26 PM
Ralph: this just popped up in my alert box. Survey time from NCAA about a new DIV III subdivision.

Click here: http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c=sportsnetwork&page=other/news/AON4128659.htm

enjoy
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: iwumichigander on February 15, 2008, 01:13:28 PM
Quote from: frank uible on February 02, 2008, 05:14:47 PM
Why does any college need the NCAA to help it make decisions about its operation, including decisions about admissions, scheduling of athletic opponents or other extra-curricular opportunities for its student body?
Member institutions voluntarily decide to join the NCAA; and, by joining, make their own conscious decision to abide by the NCAA rules, regulations and governing bodies.  The NCAA does not make decisions for its individual member institutions; it provides a framework within which its members make their own decisions.  Decisions to change, or not change, that framework, unless provisioned otherwise within its bylaws, are voted upon by the collective members.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on February 15, 2008, 04:50:43 PM
My point exactly. Let's do away with the NCAA as useless.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 15, 2008, 10:56:02 PM
Quote from: frank uible on February 15, 2008, 04:50:43 PM
My point exactly. Let's do away with the NCAA as useless.

I have a veteran AD friend who expects the BCS conferences to do just that in a few years.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: johnnie_esq on February 16, 2008, 10:00:58 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 15, 2008, 10:56:02 PM
Quote from: frank uible on February 15, 2008, 04:50:43 PM
My point exactly. Let's do away with the NCAA as useless.

I have a veteran AD friend who expects the BCS conferences to do just that in a few years.

That wouldn't surprise me in the least.  Those schools already "control" the bulk of NCAA football revenue (read: TV deals) and could essentially control basketball revenue as well.  If they do break off, the remaining NCAA has lost its funding source. I am only surprised they have yet to try it to date.

Congress would be pi$$ed though.   College sports have been able to get the pass because of NCAA oversight, but if BCS broke off in the name of money, you can bet Congress would get involved.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2008, 10:22:35 AM
Quote from: johnnie_esq on February 16, 2008, 10:00:58 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 15, 2008, 10:56:02 PM
Quote from: frank uible on February 15, 2008, 04:50:43 PM
My point exactly. Let's do away with the NCAA as useless.

I have a veteran AD friend who expects the BCS conferences to do just that in a few years.
That wouldn't surprise me in the least.  Those schools already "control" the bulk of NCAA football revenue (read: TV deals) and could essentially control basketball revenue as well.  If they do break off, the remaining NCAA has lost its funding source. I am only surprised they have yet to try it to date.

Congress would be pi$$ed though.   College sports have been able to get the pass because of NCAA oversight, but if BCS broke off in the name of money, you can bet Congress would get involved.
+1!  You bet they would.

As it is now, there are an additional 430 D-III schools that are constituent members of the NCAA, who have strong relationships with their members of congress.  This affiliation costs the NCAA ("BCS") 3.18%  What is the tax rate that tax-money hungry governments want to place on the revenue from the "entertainment fees" earned by big-time intercollegiate athletics?

D-III provides a huge buffer to BCS, because we conduct athletic competitions for our student-athletes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 16, 2008, 12:10:11 PM
I feel that without the NCAA, there would be more rampant abuse of 'student' athletes. Before the NCAA, things were really a 'wild west' with players jumping around at will and there was no pretense of class attendance.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NYBB on February 19, 2008, 02:56:18 PM
the NCAA is necessary. end of story
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on February 20, 2008, 05:17:10 PM
Attached article is from the Morning Call of the Allentown PA area. Surveys will be made public in March, but the comments, lets just say even in the article they do not think so.

Click here: http://www.mcall.com/sports/college/all-d3.6279455feb20,0,4754103.story?page=1
and here for page two jus in case: http://www.mcall.com/sports/college/all-d3.6279455feb20,0,4754103.story?page=2

enjoy the read
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2008, 02:38:41 PM
The Capital Athletic Conference issued a statement on restructuring today. I've posted it on the Daily Dose.

http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2008/02/21/one-conferences-take-on-d-iv

You guys have had some great conversations on this board on the topic but I'd love to see you bring it to the blog so we can get some new readers to see it. Hope you'll join us. If you haven't registered for the blog, it's quick and easy.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on February 21, 2008, 04:27:43 PM
Quote from: NYBB on February 19, 2008, 02:56:18 PM
the NCAA is necessary. end of story

That doesn't mean the NCAA isn't filled with hypocrisy and capable of being run much much better than it currently is.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on February 21, 2008, 08:03:30 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2008, 02:38:41 PM
The Capital Athletic Conference issued a statement on restructuring today. I've posted it on the Daily Dose.

http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2008/02/21/one-conferences-take-on-d-iv

This may force other Conferences to make a statement and bring forth those who wish for change, as well as those who do not.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 21, 2008, 09:20:34 PM
Quote from: old ends on February 21, 2008, 08:03:30 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 21, 2008, 02:38:41 PM
The Capital Athletic Conference issued a statement on restructuring today. I've posted it on the Daily Dose.

http://www.d3hoops.com/dailydose/2008/02/21/one-conferences-take-on-d-iv

This may force other Conferences to make a statement and bring forth those who wish for change, as well as those who do not.
I can think of no better spokesperson to make the case for D-IV than Franklin and Marshall President John Fry.  President Fry has cited the legislative differences.  The Centennial Conference has been one of the leading conferences in what has been described as the "more restrictive" legislation.

The survey should be an opportunity for those conferences who perceive the stated needs to respond in their surveys in a manner that 150 schools can "design" their own division.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Coach K on February 22, 2008, 07:04:18 PM
I guess I am not understanding why all the talk about a breakup? The only thing I could figure, is that maybe the schools that compete in conferences that are comprised of mainly private institutions might want to have their own division because of their perceived inability to compete with larger state institutions. Conferences like the MAC and the PAC in the mid-atlantic region might feel that they lack the resources to battle against the SUNYAC and NJAC with their slightly larger student bodies and state funding.

If that is the case though, lets be realistic, Division 1 basketball should be split. Does a school in the MEAC or in the Big Sky Conference legitimately believe that they can compete against the ACC or the SEC come conference time. You could legitimately argue that basketball at the D-1 level should go the route of football, and give those conferences a level playing field.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 22, 2008, 07:33:47 PM
Well, since the MEAC and Big Sky have beaten the big boys in the NCAA hoops tourney, then yes, they can compete on occasion.

In D-1, it's all about the Benjamins. D-3 vs. D-4 is something else...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on February 22, 2008, 10:04:16 PM
Coach K, I don't know about the other State School conferences but the NJAC schools have had a big chunk of the state funding taken away and seem to be losing money from the state every year.  I know at NJCU they hired a VP of fundraising.  I also believe the other NJAC schools have had to raise funds on their own, this has lead to so re-god-dam-diculous tuition and housing increases.  Private schools seem to do a better job of providing financial aid then the state colleges do.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2008, 10:17:34 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 22, 2008, 10:04:16 PM
Coach K, I don't know about the other State School conferences but the NJAC schools have had a big chunk of the state funding taken away and seem to be losing money from the state every year.  I know at NJCU they hired a VP of fundraising.  I also believe the other NJAC schools have been had to raise funds on their own, this has lead to so re-god-dam-diculous tuition and housing increases.  Private schools seem to do a better job of providing financial aid then the state colleges do.

This is not totally relevant, since all Michigan state universities are either d1 or d2, but state funding has declined so dramatically in recent years that several schools (including U of M) have researched the possibility of going private.  Being a 'state-funded' school has some advantages, but there are also drawbacks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2008, 10:29:51 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2008, 10:17:34 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 22, 2008, 10:04:16 PM
Coach K, I don't know about the other State School conferences but the NJAC schools have had a big chunk of the state funding taken away and seem to be losing money from the state every year.  I know at NJCU they hired a VP of fundraising.  I also believe the other NJAC schools have been had to raise funds on their own, this has lead to so re-god-dam-diculous tuition and housing increases.  Private schools seem to do a better job of providing financial aid then the state colleges do.
This is not totally relevant, since all Michigan state universities are either d1 or d2, but state funding has declined so dramatically in recent years that several schools (including U of M) have researched the possibility of going private.  Being a 'state-funded' school has some advantages, but there are also drawbacks.

University of Michigan (http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/2006NES_Listing.pdf) is #9 on the list of endowments.

You see some Ivies, some UAA's and D-1 privates in the realm of UMichigan's endowment.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NYBB on February 23, 2008, 09:48:54 AM
No point in creating a D-IV.  That's just too much, no?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2008, 09:05:01 AM
Town Hall Meetings will explore membership issues (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/Town+Hall+Meetings+will+explore+membership+issues+-+02-29-08+NCAA+News)

The next round of talks begin with regional town hall meetings beginning May 8.

We should see the survey results in early April. (I'm giving them enough time to process the data).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: snail on March 10, 2008, 02:04:58 PM
Like most things related to NCAA, they have to wake up and smell the coffee. D3 schools do not for the most part have the millions DI schools have. Most D3 schools do not have a 12 million dollar facility or a guy waiting to die or stay alive and donate the $$$$.
So smaller schools ahve to go get local business to help them have anything at all above basics. We had a local business step up big time and renovate where we play basketball. D3 mnd ya....the NCAA wizzards made rthem cover up the scoreboard like that's gonna create some unfair advantage, pull the labels off the water because they(NCAA) must have a contract with some other water company.
With million dollar deals at DUKE and thousands upon thousands watching every game I sort understand their fear of not getting "thier" cut. but to come on down to D3 and prostitute the smaller schools is really sort of pathetic!   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sac on March 11, 2008, 10:03:54 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 22, 2008, 10:29:51 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 22, 2008, 10:17:34 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 22, 2008, 10:04:16 PM
Coach K, I don't know about the other State School conferences but the NJAC schools have had a big chunk of the state funding taken away and seem to be losing money from the state every year.  I know at NJCU they hired a VP of fundraising.  I also believe the other NJAC schools have been had to raise funds on their own, this has lead to so re-god-dam-diculous tuition and housing increases.  Private schools seem to do a better job of providing financial aid then the state colleges do.
This is not totally relevant, since all Michigan state universities are either d1 or d2, but state funding has declined so dramatically in recent years that several schools (including U of M) have researched the possibility of going private.  Being a 'state-funded' school has some advantages, but there are also drawbacks.

University of Michigan (http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/2006NES_Listing.pdf) is #9 on the list of endowments.

You see some Ivies, some UAA's and D-1 privates in the realm of UMichigan's endowment.

There are 4 other state run D-1's in Michigan and if I counted right 7 other state funded D2's.  The University of Michigan and its financial situation is the exception to the norm in this state.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hugenerd on March 20, 2008, 03:23:58 PM
Quote from: AF4 on January 17, 2008, 08:45:37 PM

MIT is no doubt tough...but...do u believe it is that much harder than Ga Tech (go look up thier admission) they play competitive D-1 and it is an engineering school...ain't any basket weaving or even PE degrees



I know this was on this board a long time ago, but I just read it so I will respond. 

There is no way to compare a d1 institution to a d3 institution in the sense you are trying to.  The breaks they give athletes in d1, even at institutions like georgia tech, duke, and stanford, is not something done on the d3 level and definitely not done at MIT.  I also looked up GA Tech's roster, and 10 of their 14 players are majoring in management, and only 1 of 14 is majoring in an engineering or technical major.  Stanford has no players on their roster in technical fields.

MIT doesnt even allow coaches to "recruit" (in my definition of the word), meaning they could get the best player in the country to commit, but they would have to be admitted to the university independently to be able to come (playing athletics is not taken into account any more than any other extracurricular activity, meaning you could be the best player in the country and you wouldnt get any more consideration than someone who rode the bench as a high school player in any given sport).  In other words, coaches have no influence over admission and dont get any "picks".  I know that even UAA schools have some influence over admissions for their athletes.  It is amazing to me how little support athletes get at MIT compared to even other d3 institutions.  I played at a UAA school undergrad, and we got all types of free gear, a couple pairs of basketball shoes, and other things you would think would come standard with playing college basketball.  MIT hardly gets any of those things, they have to pay for their own shoes and they have a very small budget for everything else because MIT tries to support 40+ varsity sports with a relatively minute athletic budget.  They dont even have their own, permanent, locker room.  The emphasis is most definitely on academics (as it should be), and you really cant use athletics as an excuse for anything.  In my opinion, it requires one to make many more sacrifices than the average college athlete.  The only institution that is comparable, in my opinion, is Caltech, and we all know how awful they have historically been.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: speedy on March 28, 2008, 02:49:13 PM
It looks as though the proposal to create a new D4 may be dead for now !! Apparently the survey data did not support the creation of a new D4 as had been proposed by the d3 working group. Here is the beginning part of the story from the NCAA website:

QuoteA Division III panel meeting this week in Indianapolis ended its discussion of creating a new NCAA division or subdivision to address the growth of Division III, recommending instead that the Association adopt a more broad-based approach in responding to its continuing growth.

The Division III Working Group on Membership Issues, which last fall suggested creating a new division or subdividing Division III in anticipation of divisional growth to 480 members by 2020, made the decision after reviewing preliminary results from a membership survey that asked for opinions about restructuring, among other questions.

The working group's suggestion was to create a new classification based on higher minimum sports sponsorship and also featuring other membership standards that would have distinguished it from the current Division III.

The survey's results will not publicly be released until April 9, after an Association-wide working group established by the NCAA Executive Committee to study membership issues also has an opportunity to review the findings. But members of the Division III panel characterized the degree of opposition to the restructuring recorded in the survey as consistent with the level of opposition that was expressed during an NCAA Convention discussion of the working group's proposal.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 28, 2008, 05:03:27 PM
Quote from: speedy on March 28, 2008, 02:49:13 PM
It looks as though the proposal to create a new D4 may be dead for now !! Apparently the survey data did not support the creation of a new D4 as had been proposed by the d3 working group. Here is the beginning part of the story from the NCAA website:

QuoteA Division III panel meeting this week in Indianapolis ended its discussion of creating a new NCAA division or subdivision to address the growth of Division III, recommending instead that the Association adopt a more broad-based approach in responding to its continuing growth.

The Division III Working Group on Membership Issues, which last fall suggested creating a new division or subdividing Division III in anticipation of divisional growth to 480 members by 2020, made the decision after reviewing preliminary results from a membership survey that asked for opinions about restructuring, among other questions.

The working group's suggestion was to create a new classification based on higher minimum sports sponsorship and also featuring other membership standards that would have distinguished it from the current Division III.

The survey's results will not publicly be released until April 9, after an Association-wide working group established by the NCAA Executive Committee to study membership issues also has an opportunity to review the findings.

But members of the Division III panel characterized the degree of opposition to the restructuring recorded in the survey as consistent with the level of opposition that was expressed during an NCAA Convention discussion of the working group's proposal.
Is that a euphemistic characterization of a smack-down?  ;)

Thanks for finding that!  I had just looked last night!  :)  +1!

Link to complete story... (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/Division+III+panel+ends+restructuring+discussion+-+03-28-08+NCAA+NewsLink)

Quote...The working group continues to believe that membership growth will aggravate differences among Division III institutions on such questions of minimum sports sponsorship, "redshirting," appropriate membership standards and competitive restrictions, and also will make it increasingly difficult to maintain current levels of championships access and national office services.

Working group members, anticipating a series of Division III Town Hall meetings scheduled beginning in May, recommended that the membership begin discussing alternatives for addressing growth-related concerns during those sessions.

The working group also listed several topics for further consideration that were subjects of questions in the survey, including financial aid policies, sport-sponsorship levels, playing and practice seasons restrictions, championships access and membership standards...

We have seen these before.  IMHO, the "ideologues" in the Working Group could not find 150 members who would subscribe to a new and common type of division.

I understand the "access to championship" concerns.  We all want more Pool C bids in the various team sports.

I can imagine the strains on the bureaucracy incurred by growth and the amount of the budget allocated to D-III.  Examples of this constraint are not as readily apparent in the discussions, nor is a divisional split guaranteed to provide the answer.

Quote
"...financial aid policies, sport-sponsorship levels, playing and practice seasons restrictions, championships access and membership standards..."

This just seems to be "old-fashioned diversity" expressed in the voluntary organization that can resolved with democratic  principles.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on March 29, 2008, 05:14:50 PM
Glad to read that story. I had yet to see any reasons I found convincing as to why DIII should be split. Hopefully, the NCAA can spent its time on something more useful now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Josh Bowerman on March 29, 2008, 09:50:37 PM
Good riddance to an ill-founded notion.

I would, however, be in favor of looking at financial aid policies at DIII member institutions.  Me thinks that, plus looking at some way to level out the inheirient tuition advantage the state schools have, seem to be the biggest issues facing DIII from a competition standpoint...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: K-Mack on March 29, 2008, 10:48:04 PM
Quote from: Josh Bowerman on March 29, 2008, 09:50:37 PM
Good riddance to an ill-founded notion.

I would, however, be in favor of looking at financial aid policies at DIII member institutions.  Me thinks that, plus looking at some way to level out the inheirient tuition advantage the state schools have, seem to be the biggest issues facing DIII from a competition standpoint...

I second that emo, er, motion.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on March 30, 2008, 08:33:03 PM
Well in general,, for now the future looks very good!!!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wc2viking on April 05, 2008, 01:56:42 AM
Hooray!  I suppose the NCAA is sorta a democracy.  The amazingly unworkable Division IV proposals are deservedly dead for now.....(but I bet they get dredged up again in a few years by the same snobs who got this whole mess started.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wildcat11 on April 09, 2008, 02:12:22 PM
Survey's are out:  NCAA.org (http://www.ncaa.org)

There is much more detail but in a nutshell 82% of the membership support the current structure of DIII.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 09, 2008, 04:25:30 PM
Quote from: wildcat11 on April 09, 2008, 02:12:22 PM
Survey's are out:  NCAA.org (http://www.ncaa.org)

There is much more detail but in a nutshell 82% of the membership support the current structure of DIII.
When is the last time that you heard about a bunch of educators agreeing by 82% on anything?   :D

You cannot even get 82% agreement that there should be a coffee pot in the faculty lounge!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 09, 2008, 07:18:09 PM
I found Question #6 and Question #7 instructive.

6.  Division III legislative standards should generally become less permissive.

26.6% agree
68.6% disagree
4.9%   don't know

7.  Division III legislative standards should generally become more permissive.

27.1% agree
68.7% disagree
4.1%   don't know

Don't those percentages of answers suggest a near-perfect Gaussian distribution of the middle-ground!   :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on April 09, 2008, 07:58:23 PM
I am just glad that, for now, status quo remains. For the majority of DIV III to agree, with the diverse backrounds of all of the schools, is amazing.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 09, 2008, 04:25:30 PM

You cannot even get 82% agreement that there should be a coffee pot in the faculty lounge!

and nothing more could be added.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 10, 2008, 01:19:43 AM
Analysis (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/News+analysis+What%E2%80%99s+next+in+Division+III+-+04-09-08+NCAA+News)

Having read the article and reviewed the surveys, (I'm sorry, but) it seems that there is much hubris and elitist's anger that the membership did not do what the experts thought was in the best interest of those poor souls who don't know what is good for them.

We now have a solid number of those institutions that want this change...15% (of 96% of 440).  That is roughly 60 schools and very far short of the 150 needed for a viable sub-division.  Having been rebuffed so thoroughly, they will only re-double their efforts, knowing that they are a long way from where they want to be.  They will not go away.

I do not believe that this analysis was written by someone who does not share some of these "secessionist" views.  The writer (Mr Jack Copeland) takes great pains to enumerate each of the minor differences that exist inside so diverse a membership, when the overwhelming message was "Don't break up Division III".

QuoteBut more direct consequences of membership growth -- which research indicates will result in a 480-member division by 2020 at the current rate of expansion -- will be less easy to ignore. That certainly was the parting warning from the now-disbanded Division III working group, which stated that continuing growth not only might aggravate philosophical differences, but make it increasingly difficult to maintain current levels of championships access and national office services.

Let's address those two problems.  Is current access to the championships impaired by the current membership.  I see that growth of conferences as funneling the teams into the championship.  Do we have disgruntled presidents who are not getting the at-large bids to keep with the Jones' (or the Williams') in the Directors' Cup?  I have documented that Pool B is going away.  The Division can grow to 64 conferences of 9 members each (576 schools) and still have access to playoffs in the parameters outlined by the survey.  576 schools would carry the NCAA to 2030 at more-than-current growth rates.  The seniors of 2030 are only being born this year.

National office services...what services are necessary to the execution of the championships versus what are proverbial "admiral's yacht"?  Corporate America and families pare extravagances that are not vital to the continued goals on a regular basis.  Should not "best practices" be adopted to eliminate waste and duplication inside the NCAA?

And what are we to make of this comment?  Were they not listening when they began this (D-IV) process?

Quote"It's the task of leadership to provide information and then listen," said Valerie Cushman, former Division III Management Council chair and a member of the Division III working group. "We now must listen to what the membership is saying, while continuing to educate about the issues."

IMHO, the "secessionists" will re-consider their efforts and continue the legislative efforts to drive the Division where they want it to go.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 12, 2008, 07:02:42 AM
Holland MI Sentinel (http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/041108/localsports_20080411052.shtml) article about the D-IV vote.

The Hope AD and the MIAA Commissioner talk about their strong unified "anti-D-IV" stance.

Quote"We didn't feel like there was a need for change," Smith said. "We felt the NCAA was looking for a solution when they couldn't identify the problem." -- Hope College AD Ray Smith

Quote"I think the MIAA actually was very much a catalyst," Neilson said. "We were in unanimous opposition. We put together a position paper and forwarded it to the two groups studying this issue immediately before the NCAA convention in December. It got the ball rolling." -- MIAA Commissioner David Neilson


Thanks to Flying Dutch Fan for posting this link on the MIAA Men's Board
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on April 12, 2008, 08:56:13 AM
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/04/12/usports/doc48000a48128c2981695661.txt

Illinois Wesleyan was among the responding schools that opposed the split, athletic director Dennie Bridges said.

"Our position is that even though the division is growing and that there are differing opinions on some issues that we can and should stay together and work out our differences," Bridges said.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on April 12, 2008, 09:02:06 AM
What colleges comprised the 15% minority?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 14, 2008, 08:45:23 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on April 12, 2008, 08:56:13 AM
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/04/12/usports/doc48000a48128c2981695661.txt

Illinois Wesleyan was among the responding schools that opposed the split, athletic director Dennie Bridges said.

"Our position is that even though the division is growing and that there are differing opinions on some issues that we can and should stay together and work out our differences," Bridges said.


Prior to the vote I was informed by administrators from two different CCIW schools that the representatives of the league's eight schools would unanimously vote against the split. This must've come as a disappointment to the secessionists within the D3 ranks, since the CCIW had been identified by the NCAA's data as a likely "D4 candidate" league.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 14, 2008, 10:21:05 PM
As was the WIAC. It was laughable data. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: luvdahoops on April 17, 2008, 09:46:06 AM
Quote from: frank uible on April 12, 2008, 09:02:06 AM
What colleges comprised the 15% minority?

I guarantee you that it was the PRESIDENTS of those colleges in the 15% minority that were interested.  No one can name a single athletic administrator at ANY Division III school that favored subdivision.  It is about presidential ego and wanting to be perceived as elite.  Apparently there are about 60 presidents who fit that category.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 17, 2008, 01:26:48 PM
Quote from: luvdahoops on April 17, 2008, 09:46:06 AM
Quote from: frank uible on April 12, 2008, 09:02:06 AM
What colleges comprised the 15% minority?
I guarantee you that it was the PRESIDENTS of those colleges in the 15% minority that were interested.  No one can name a single athletic administrator at ANY Division III school that favored subdivision.  It is about presidential ego and wanting to be perceived as elite.  Apparently there are about 60 presidents who fit that category.
As we have reviewed the news reports after the meetings, the D-IV document assumptions from the meeting and the preceding year, and the conference-sponsored position papers, e.g., the Capital AC and the MIAC, we have heard that the CCIW did not go for the split, and the MIAA had grave reservations.  We know that Earlham and Southwestern TX presidents spoke favorably, though.

I wonder if that "60" consisted of 40 schools that wanted to get stricter, e.g, the D-IV provisions and another 20 schools actually wanted to use this vote as a chance to move to something different, e.g., dramatically less restrictive.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 21, 2008, 10:50:12 AM
Interesting report on Division I spending, especially FBS and FCS Football spending

Spending  Report (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g38nYBSYGYxqb6kWhCjggRb31fj_zcVP0A_YLc0IhyR0VFAABTEJw!/delta/base64xml/L0lDU0lKQ1RPN29na21BISEvb0VvUUFBSVFnakZJQUFRaENFSVFqR0VBLzRKRmlDbzBlaDFpY29uUVZHaGQtc0lRIS83XzBfNVVWLzg1NzI1NQ!!?WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_0_5UV_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Assocation-wide/Refined+reporting+shines+brighter+light+on+spending+-+04-17-08+NCAA+News)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on April 23, 2008, 05:58:19 PM
2008 NAIA State of the Association Address...

http://naia.cstv.com/member-services/2008NAIAStateoftheAssociationAddress.htm

As we continue to carve our niche, as we stay in our lane, we also are in a position to explore our relationship with the NCAA, to learn from them and potentially take advantage of new resources. Before I talk about the specifics of those conversations, let's retrace the reasons why these conversations are vital to the NAIA's interests.

The perception has been that the NCAA is going to do something to the NAIA, and that we only can stand by, wring our hands about what the NCAA may intend, essentially staying in a passive, reactive posture, allowing others at the conference and national levels to drive the agenda.

This approach – allowing ourselves simply to be acted upon – is a mistake.  We will be hurt and weakened as an association. If we allow these conversations to be conducted in the back channels, the dynamics shaped primarily by the individual actions and small pockets of self interest at the conference level, we will have only ourselves to blame. If we wish to predict the future, we must shape it. We must be unafraid to engage it.

As a result, we have worked purposefully and in a sustained way in the last two years to engage the NCAA directly, to state its intentions, its position with regard to the NAIA in intercollegiate athletics, to help the NCAA gain a better understanding of the unique character of the NAIA, to make clear the implications of various NCAA policies – in short, to create intentional discussion with the NCAA about the interests and agenda of the NAIA.

The result has been a sustained, meaningful and important dialogue between the NCAA and NAIA on a whole range of issues of mutual concern. Those conversations began at the level of senior members of the two national office staffs (including Myles Brand and myself), and in recent months the circle has extended to include several presidents representing the NCAA's three divisions and a similar number from the NAIA.

The results have been encouraging – and in some respect intriguing.

At this point, each association has committed to support one another publicly and continue to share information. In addition, senior staffs will analyze various programmatic partnerships, including, but not limited to, encouraging competition between NAIA and Division II and Division III members, combining catastrophic insurance plans, sharing resources related to eligibility certification and letter of intent and creating joint "academies" for gender equity, leadership, character and inclusion.  These specific partnerships will move forward only if the benefits to each association justify a partnership.

As we explore these specific joint programs, we also will continue to discuss the NAIA/NCAA relationship. Representatives of both organizations agree that we should explore all means by which the NAIA and NCAA can work together for the mutual benefit of our two associations and the common good of intercollegiate athletics and the student-athletes we serve. We have a window of opportunity to work with the leadership of the NCAA to develop alternatives. We need to be explicit about how we work together and put the conversation into the context of where we want to be in ten to fifteen years.  In other words, how can the NAIA and NCAA create a landscape that benefits all intercollegiate student-athletes?

As we continue our discussions with the NCAA, we want your input. Help us examine the relationship as it currently exists and where you would like to see it go. What are the specific benefits to the NAIA and our members if we join forces in specific areas? How do we best partner with them and retain our identity?

My final comments on our relationship with the NCAA is that you need to know that representatives of the COP have made it clear in every discussion that retaining our identity, keeping the NAIA in tact, is a priority. NCAA representatives understand our position and are willing to proceed.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 23, 2008, 06:12:18 PM
Interesting quote from Titan Q's post...

QuoteAs a tangible indicator that our plan is resonating with people, we have welcomed 11 new members into the NAIA in 2007-08. New members include: Indiana University East, Life University (Ga.), St. Catherine College (Ky.), Soka University (Calif.), Ave Maria University (Fla.), Cincinnati Christian College (Ohio), Kentucky Christian University, University of Maine, Presque Isle, College of Santa Fe (N.M), Southeastern University (Fla.), Talladega College (Ala.).

+1 Titan!  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on April 24, 2008, 12:46:55 AM
Aaarrgghh!!!  They can't take UMPI away from us!

On certain boards, there goes half the comic relief! ;D :o ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on April 24, 2008, 08:38:13 AM
NAIA is losing Ohio Dominican which is beginning the exploratory period for joining DII.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2008, 08:45:34 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 23, 2008, 06:12:18 PM
Interesting quote from Titan Q's post...

QuoteAs a tangible indicator that our plan is resonating with people, we have welcomed 11 new members into the NAIA in 2007-08. New members include: Indiana University East, Life University (Ga.), St. Catherine College (Ky.), Soka University (Calif.), Ave Maria University (Fla.), Cincinnati Christian College (Ohio), Kentucky Christian University, University of Maine, Presque Isle, College of Santa Fe (N.M), Southeastern University (Fla.), Talladega College (Ala.).

+1 Titan!  :)

Life University is an interesting story. A Georgia institution primarily designed to be a chiropractic training college, it won the NAIA-1 championships in men's basketball in 1997, 1999, and 2000, and finished second in 1994. However, the school discontinued its membership in the NAIA at some point in this decade, and is only now being readmitted. I'm not sure why, but it might have something to do with the accreditation crisis that resulted in the school temporarily losing its certification from America's guild of chiropractors back in 2002.

Life is also one of only two schools in the U.S. that offers rugby as a men's varsity sport rather than as a club sport (along with Cal-Berkeley), and it's the only one of the two that offers athletic scholarships to rugby players.

Soka University, which is entering the NAIA this year alongside Life and our favorite d3hoops.com geographical punchline UMPI, is to the best of my knowledge the only Buddhist-oriented institution of higher learning in the United States.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 24, 2008, 11:30:33 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2008, 08:45:34 AM
Soka University, which is entering the NAIA this year alongside Life and our favorite d3hoops.com geographical punchline UMPI, is to the best of my knowledge the only Buddhist-oriented institution of higher learning in the United States.

What about the Transcendental Meditation college in Iowa?  I know its not exactly Buddhist anymore, but it's based in Buddhism, right?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2008, 02:28:46 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on April 24, 2008, 11:30:33 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2008, 08:45:34 AM
Soka University, which is entering the NAIA this year alongside Life and our favorite d3hoops.com geographical punchline UMPI, is to the best of my knowledge the only Buddhist-oriented institution of higher learning in the United States.

What about the Transcendental Meditation college in Iowa?  I know its not exactly Buddhist anymore, but it's based in Buddhism, right?

Hinduism. Right continent, wrong religion. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 26, 2008, 11:52:36 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2008, 02:28:46 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on April 24, 2008, 11:30:33 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2008, 08:45:34 AM
Soka University, which is entering the NAIA this year alongside Life and our favorite d3hoops.com geographical punchline UMPI, is to the best of my knowledge the only Buddhist-oriented institution of higher learning in the United States.

What about the Transcendental Meditation college in Iowa?  I know its not exactly Buddhist anymore, but it's based in Buddhism, right?

Hinduism. Right continent, wrong religion.

That was why I asked.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on May 10, 2008, 11:15:48 PM
Article in the Houston Chronicle on collaboration between NCAA and NAIA;

http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=jsMRMmjcgtKmtzqQKVPnfnVyPqC2ZSvz
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 10, 2008, 11:33:48 PM
That's actually the Chronicle of Higher Education, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 10, 2008, 11:50:48 PM
Quote from: roocru on May 10, 2008, 11:15:48 PM
Article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on collaboration between NCAA and NAIA;

http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=jsMRMmjcgtKmtzqQKVPnfnVyPqC2ZSvz


Take home quote that goes to the very core of the NCAA.
QuoteJim Carr, the NAIA's president, wants the NCAA to make it easier for programs from the two associations to play more often so colleges can save on travel costs. While it's still unclear whether the NCAA will change its championship guidelines, Mr. Carr is encouraged by what he has heard lately.

"It seems silly that schools are right across the street from each other and can't play because of ratings criteria," he said in an interview last week. "We're excited to be having a dialogue with the NCAA to help make that change."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on May 11, 2008, 10:23:15 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 10, 2008, 11:33:48 PM
That's actually the Chronicle of Higher Education, for what it's worth.

Ooops!!  The article was sent to me in an email and was mislabeled there.  Sorry!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 17, 2008, 09:55:27 PM
 'Town Hall' format seeks responses to growth (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/Town+Hall+format+seeks+responses+to+growth+-+05-15-08+NCAA+News)
NCAA News -- May 15, 2008



Town hall: Tensions arise from balancing objectives, ideals (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=1659)

May 22, 2008 release from the NCAA News by Jack Copeland about the Boston Townhall Meeting
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on June 27, 2008, 09:37:21 AM
So it looks like they are going to keep trying to go with sub- divisions.

Click here: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=26351 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=26351)

enjoy
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2008, 09:40:15 AM
I don't read this that way at all.

QuoteThe committee -- responding to a Division III Management Council referral of issues raised in the recent survey that also ended consideration of creation of a new division or subdivision as a solution for growth -- likely will revisit recently implemented compliance standards for active members and also explore whether the division would benefit from a dues increase.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on June 27, 2008, 09:48:53 AM
Yes, the way it reads I would agree with you. Just a old timer, like me, know the best way to keep a subject going is to keep it in the front to keep the topic active.

But that my insight.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 29, 2008, 03:07:37 AM
This one slipped right past me!

I am a little confused , because I thought that conference games were in-region now!  :-\

D-III Championships Committee (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=29340) recommendation for Jan 2009.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on June 29, 2008, 11:01:18 AM
Could it be that that is the case in some sports but not all?  The focus of the committee's recomendation seemed to be that the "in-region requirement should be applied to all sports."

I don't know the answer to my question, just suggesting a scenario that expalins the recommendation.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 29, 2008, 11:39:02 AM
I think it's on a conference-by-conference basis so far -- this could be them formalizing a policy for all Division III conferences.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on June 29, 2008, 11:49:37 AM
I don't know how I feel about the 25% in region requirement for team/individual sports like cross country and track. It is in the middle of the article that Ralph Turner posted.

On one hand 25% doesn't sound terribly difficult to achieve but on the other hand you have none if any control on who comes to meets that aren't your own, that could make it difficult to achieve.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on June 29, 2008, 12:44:40 PM
Not surprisingly these bureaucrats being bureaucrats behave like bureaucrats - heaping rules and regulations upon rules and regulations as if such action solves the problems of the world.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on June 29, 2008, 01:36:25 PM
It still seems inconsistent to me to place all this emphasis on in-rerion, but then throw out regions when picking playoff teams and brackets (not that I think the selection process not considering regions is always a bad idea).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 02, 2008, 10:50:05 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 29, 2008, 03:07:37 AM
This one slipped right past me!

I am a little confused , because I thought that conference games were in-region now!  :-\

D-III Championships Committee (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=29340) recommendation for Jan 2009.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 29, 2008, 11:39:02 AM

I think it's on a conference-by-conference basis so far -- this could be them formalizing a policy for all Division III conferences.

Interview (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=30496) with Redlands AD and Chair of the D-III Championships Committee Jeff Martinez.

Several bits of general information but no dramatic revelations.  You get the impression that hard numbers are three weekends for playoffs except football, and 64-team tourneys as a cap.  Modifying Pool B and Pool C bid ratios to match the membership needs is an option, and there is no mention of NAIA schools in any concern.

The Regional emphasis is discussed as well.

Enjoy (and thanks to Mr Martinez.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 02, 2008, 10:59:37 PM
This might also allow selective cases of border/fringe schools in one administrative region and another evaluation region and another conference expand the number of in-region options.

I had assumed that conference membership was on criteria across the board as in-region.  It really helps the UAA, the SCAC and even the NEAC.

Another hypothetical scenario might be for a Shenandoah to move to the MAC-Commonwealth. 

Shenandoah might be in the South evaluation region for football and catch Texas schools, in Administrative Region #3 for all sports (and pick-up the states of VA, NC, SC, FL, GA, AL, MS, LA, AR, TN, KY, IN, MI, OH and WV) and then get the MAC-Commonwealth schools which are in PA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 11, 2008, 01:01:34 PM
Legislation to change the access ratio for Golf (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=32721).
UT-Tyler was the #3 ranked Golf team in the country, but lost out to St John's and Redland in getting the two allocated Pool C bids.  SJU and Redlands finished 1-2 in the tourney as Pool C's, and the #3 team in the country stayed home as the "3rd or next Pool C" team.

Another proposal will add the criterion of late season performance (last three tourneys) to the criteria for this sport.

Changing the access ratio from 1:7.5 to 1:7 would potentially add an additional four at-large bids in Pools B and C combined in 2011.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: runyr on July 12, 2008, 01:02:47 PM
Quote from: frank uible on June 29, 2008, 12:44:40 PM
Not surprisingly these bureaucrats being bureaucrats behave like bureaucrats - heaping rules and regulations upon rules and regulations as if such action solves the problems of the world.
Amen to that!  
There should be a rule that to gain a new rule you must lose an existing rule: a rule on the number of rules!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 17, 2008, 02:41:32 PM
Here is the link to the legislation coming for a vote in the January meeting.
Link (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=33522)

This piece of legislation caught my eye.

QuoteAllow institutions to view throughout the season NCAA computer data related to primary and secondary criteria for ranking and selection of teams for championships (Capital Athletic Conference).

Maybe D3sports.com can figure out how to access these data, too!   ;)  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on August 08, 2008, 10:29:57 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 17, 2008, 02:41:32 PM
Here is the link to the legislation coming for a vote in the January meeting.
Link (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=33522)

This piece of legislation caught my eye.

QuoteAllow institutions to view throughout the season NCAA computer data related to primary and secondary criteria for ranking and selection of teams for championships (Capital Athletic Conference).

Maybe D3sports.com can figure out how to access these data, too!   ;)  ;D

Well, since D3sports.com is an institution, that should not present a problem!   ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: pabegg on August 11, 2008, 09:38:21 AM
The NCAA has just posted the latest list of reclassifying institutions:

Click here (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/resources/file/ebbc31098a73078/2008-09%20Provisional%2C%20Reclass%20%26%20Exploratory%20Chart.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&attachment=true)

Here's my summary of the changes:

Gone from the list (and presumed active)
Northwestern College
Purchase College
Salem College
Crown College (Minnesota)
Mount Aloysius College
Penn State Berks College
University of Maine at Presque Isle
Bethany Lutheran College
University of Minnesota, Morris

Active with restrictions (fifth year member of provisional program)
Mount Mary College

Fourth year
Mitchell College
Presentation College

Repeating third year
North Central University

Third year (games against them now count for ranking purposes)
Lancaster Bible College
Lyndon State College
Saint Vincent College
SUNY at Morrisville
La Sierra University

Second year
Geneva College
Penn State Harrisburg
Franciscan University of Steubenville
St. Joseph's College, New York
Birmingham Southern College (the only reclassifying school on the list)

First year repeat
Spalding University

First year
University of Cincinnati Clermont College
State University of New York at Cobleskill

Starting next year
Doane College (was supposed to have started this year)
Berry College
Concordia University (which one? AL? NE? MI? CA? St. Paul?)
Covenant College
Hastings College
Penn State Abington
William Jewell

No dropouts in this year's program.


Modified for formatting -- Thanks for the link, pabegg.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 11, 2008, 10:42:32 AM
QuoteDoane College (was supposed to have started this year)
Berry College
Concordia University (which one? AL? NE? MI? CA? St. Paul?)
Covenant College
Hastings College
Penn State Abington
William Jewell

Doane, Hastings and William Jewell will provide some support for Neb Wesleyan.

Berry and Covenant would fit nicely into the Great South AC (or the Southern Division of the USA South.   ;)  )

PSU-Abington looks like a fit in the NEAC.  (Is the NEAC becoming the home of those Penn State campuses that are re-classifying?)

Yeah, which Concordia?

+1 pabegg!  Thanks for finding this.

Quote from: pabegg on August 11, 2008, 09:38:21 AM
The NCAA has just posted the latest list of reclassifying institutions:

Click here (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/resources/file/ebbc31098a73078/2008-09%20Provisional%2C%20Reclass%20%26%20Exploratory%20Chart.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&attachment=true)

Here's my summary of the changes:

Gone from the list (and presumed active)      (Conference status added)
Northwestern College  UMAC
Purchase College              SKY
Salem (NC) College                       Independent-Women's
Crown College (Minnesota)   UMAC
Mount Aloysius College                     AMCC
Penn State Berks College             NEAC
University of Maine at Presque Isle           Independent
Bethany Lutheran College          UMAC
University of Minnesota, Morris        UMAC

Active with restrictions (fifth year member of provisional program)
Mount Mary College            Independent-Women's

Fourth year
Mitchell College       New England Collegiate Conference
Presentation College     UMAC

Repeating third year
North Central University    Independent

Third year (games against them now count for ranking purposes)
Lancaster Bible College       Independent
Lyndon State College          North Atlantic Conference NAC
Saint Vincent College           Pres AC
SUNY at Morrisville                SUNYAC
La Sierra University             Independent

Second year
Geneva College         Pres AC
Penn State Harrisburg      NEAC
Franciscan University of Steubenville         Independent AMCC
St. Joseph's College, New York                  Independent
Birmingham Southern College (the only reclassifying school on the list)   SCAC

First year repeat
Spalding University              SLIAC in 2009-10

First year
University of Cincinnati Clermont College     Independent
State University of New York at Cobleskill    NEAC

Starting next year
Doane College (was supposed to have started this year)
Berry College
Concordia University (which one? AL? NE? MI? CA? St. Paul?)
Covenant College
Hastings College
Penn State Abington
William Jewell

No dropouts in this year's program.


Modified for formatting -- Thanks for the link, pabegg.
Corrections appreciated.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: pabegg on August 11, 2008, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 11, 2008, 10:42:32 AM
QuoteDoane College (was supposed to have started this year)
Berry College
Concordia University (which one? AL? NE? MI? CA? St. Paul?)
Covenant College
Hastings College
Penn State Abington
William Jewell

Doane, Hastings and William Jewell will provide some support for Neb Wesleyan.

Berry and Covenant would fit nicely into the Great South AC (or the Southern Division of the USA South.   ;)  )

PSU-Abington looks like a fit in the NEAC.  (Is the NEAC becoming the home of those Penn State campuses that are re-classifying?)

Yeah which Covenant?

+1 pabegg!  Thanks for finding this.

Weird, none of these schools has any mention of transition to D3 on their web sites.

With respect to the Concordias, we can rule out Alabama (College, not University) and St. Paul (NCAA D2, so they would be in the other category). I forgot Oregon, so there are 4 possibilities: NE, MI, CA, and OR. My bet would be on Nebraska, given that Doane and Hastings are also there.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on August 11, 2008, 05:00:32 PM
I live near CUAA (the MI Concordia, which prefers to highlight it's Ann Arbor location).  If they were planning a shift to d3, I assume I would have heard about it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 12, 2008, 12:41:15 AM
Quote from: pabegg on August 11, 2008, 02:04:46 PMWith respect to the Concordias, we can rule out Alabama (College, not University) and St. Paul (NCAA D2, so they would be in the other category).

We can also rule out NY. The Concordia University that is located in Westchester County, just north of NYC, is also an NCAA D2 institution.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 11, 2008, 10:42:32 AMPSU-Abington looks like a fit in the NEAC.  (Is the NEAC becoming the home of those Penn State campuses that are re-classifying?)

PSU-Abingdon would indeed fit nicely into the NEAC, but SUNY-Cobleskill would be better suited to join the SUNYAC than the NEAC. Aside from the fact that it has an institutional affinity with the other SUNY campuses, SUNY-Cobleskill is an upstate school that has much better proximity to SUNYAC schools than to NEAC schools. Oneonta, f'rinstance, is a 40-minute drive down I-88 from Cobleskill. Utica's only an hour away, Morrisville is an hour and a half, and New Paltz and Cortland are about two hours apiece. By SUNYAC standards, that's right next door -- and with SUNY-Morrisville already bringing the league up to twelve members, I could see the SUNYAC returning to a two-division format that would make joining the league even more congenial for SUNY-Cobleskill. The NEAC, by contrast, has only one campus (Cazenovia) that is within a three-hour radius of Cobleskill.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 12, 2008, 12:50:28 AM
Thanks for the perspectives, GS!  :)

SUNY-Cobleskill (http://www.neacsports.com/School-Cobleskill.html)

I guess that they wanted to start somewhere and the NEAC made them an offer that they could not refuse.

They are four years away from full membership and the NEAC just needs warm bodies!  The SUNYAC teams would probably overpower Cobleskill for the first decade.  At least this way, they have a chance to build a four-year program!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 12, 2008, 01:07:51 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 12, 2008, 12:50:28 AM
Thanks for the perspectives, GS!  :)

SUNY-Cobleskill (http://www.neacsports.com/School-Cobleskill.html)

I guess that they wanted to start somewhere and the NEAC made them an offer that they could not refuse.

They are four years away from full membership and the NEAC just needs warm bodies!  The SUNYAC teams would probably overpower Cobleskill for the first decade.  At least this way, they have a chance to build a four-year program!

Quite true, Ralph. But with the price of gas being what it is, I think that the Cobleskill State people might regret choosing the NEAC, with its far-flung (by northeastern standards, of course ;)) spread of campuses over the much more local SUNYAC, regardless of how much more congenial NEAC-level competition is for a fledgling athletic program (fledgling in terms of four-year sports rather than juco sports) than is SUNYAC competition.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on August 14, 2008, 09:40:12 PM
The heck with gas prices, how about us poor befuddled fans!  It's bad enough that SUNY-Maritime is a football independent.  I demand that all SUNY campuses be SUNYAC!  I just can't keep track! :'(
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 15, 2008, 12:59:03 AM
I know that you're kidding, but it's eminently logical for the three non-SUNYAC colleges of the SUNY system that are current D3 members (SUNY-Purchase, SUNY-Maritime, and SUNY-Old Westbury) to stay outside of the SUNYAC. The SUNYAC is an upstate-only conference, whereas SUNY-Purchase is in Westchester County, SUNY-Maritime is in the Bronx, and SUNY-Old Westbury is on Long Island.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: pabegg on August 17, 2008, 06:49:20 AM
NCAA Release on 8/13 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/home?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Division+III/Nine+schools+gain+active+Division+III+membership+-+08-13-08+-+NCAA+News) has additional information on the reclassifying.

Highlights include:

Concordia is indeed the Seward, Nebraska campus.

The Upper Midwest Athletic Conference and New England Collegiate Conference are new active conferences.

St. Joseph's of Brooklyn is listed as Skyline Conference. As this is the first that I've seen of that, it may be a mistake; their sister campus (SJ of Long Island) is a Skyline member.

Maryville MO and Cal State East Bay are reclassifying to D2.

Active membership is now 429.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 08, 2008, 01:01:20 PM
January 2009 Legislative proposals (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=36182), as per NCAA press release, including these two...

QuoteEstablish a uniform date of August 15 as the first permissible practice date in the sports of cross country, field hockey, golf, rugby, soccer, tennis and women's volleyball. The sponsoring conferences (New Jersey Athletic and City University of New York Athletic Conferences) want to replace the current formula for determining the first practice date for those fall sports, under which schools may begin practice on a date that permits 16 practice opportunities before the first scheduled competition.

QuoteAllow institutions to view throughout the season NCAA computer data related to primary and secondary criteria for ranking and selection of teams for championships. The Colonial States Athletic Conference joined the Capital Athletic Conference in sponsorship.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: pabegg on September 22, 2008, 05:25:26 PM
The first of the 2008-09 Championship Manuals (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=36602), for men's soccer and women's soccer have been published.

At a quick browse, I didn't see anything notably different from last year.

Northern Athletics Conference is now a Pool A conference, as expected.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 25, 2008, 07:43:55 PM
New Presidential White Paper (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=37168)


QuoteChampionships

• Change the access ratio policies, as necessary, to limit the championships field in team sports to 64. This appears to be the most viable option for the division to explore.

• Establish related sports sponsorship projections, and corresponding bracket and "Pool" timetables, as appropriate, in both team and individual sports, through 2020.

• Identify necessary bracket enhancements and related costs for planning purposes.

• Emphasize the quality of the student-athlete experience as a priority in future championships discussions.

White Paper pdf (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/DIII_MC_PC/Misc/White_papers/content.pdf)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on October 03, 2008, 07:41:10 AM
Interesting article on the current status of Division III

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/02/ncaa
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on October 03, 2008, 06:12:45 PM
Quote from: wilburt on October 03, 2008, 07:41:10 AM
Interesting article on the current status of Division III

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/02/ncaa

They will try the split again. By keeping it front of the noses of those who want it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on October 15, 2008, 07:10:37 PM
Ralph,

What are the " white papers" they want to review.? See attached article.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=39156 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=39156)

Or is this just another way of saying---here comes D4.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 15, 2008, 09:51:40 PM
Quote from: old ends on October 15, 2008, 07:10:37 PM
Ralph,

What are the " white papers" they want to review.? See attached article.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=39156 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=39156)

Or is this just another way of saying---here comes D4.

Hello, old ends.

I think the link to the white papers is linked below in the White Paper pdf.

:)


Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 25, 2008, 07:43:55 PM
New Presidential White Paper (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=37168)


QuoteChampionships

• Change the access ratio policies, as necessary, to limit the championships field in team sports to 64. This appears to be the most viable option for the division to explore.

• Establish related sports sponsorship projections, and corresponding bracket and "Pool" timetables, as appropriate, in both team and individual sports, through 2020.

• Identify necessary bracket enhancements and related costs for planning purposes.

• Emphasize the quality of the student-athlete experience as a priority in future championships discussions.

White Paper pdf (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/DIII_MC_PC/Misc/White_papers/content.pdf)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on October 16, 2008, 06:08:05 PM
missed that so thank you very much
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: pabegg on October 17, 2008, 07:01:43 AM
NCAA finally got around to publishing the minutes of committee meetings since January.

Go here (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=24) and then pick your committee.

Some interesting stuff from the championships committee.

All conference games will officially be regional games in all sports; this has been a waiver process (which apparently has always been accepted).

Soccer is redoing its regions for next year (and making the mens and womens the same).

Basketball and soccer will have a "pilot" program that will allow one extra plane flight in order to allow a deserving team to host.

I've been trying to figure out how the "one extra flight" rule would come into play, and I realized the obvious example would be the 2008 men's basketball "west coast pod," where Whitworth hosted the winner of the game between Occidental and Pomona-Pitzer. This setup had one flight. If you assume that Occidental deserved to host the pod, then this rule would have allowed a 4-team pod with Whitworth and someone else flying into Los Angeles. Or if no one on the west coast deserved to host (as was likely the case), Lawrence would have gotten to host a pod, Whitworth would have flown to a 4-team pod in the midwest, and the Oxy/PP winner would have been sent to the midwest in a 3-team pod.



Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on October 17, 2008, 07:17:53 AM
Sounds as if it is rife with potential for the practice of petty politics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: pabegg on October 17, 2008, 07:32:34 AM
Quote from: frank uible on October 17, 2008, 07:17:53 AM
Sounds as if it is rife with potential for the practice of petty politics.

It looks like the committee felt they had to deal with that possibility. The minutes included the following statement:

Quote"That the parameter for implementation of this pilot program is to allow higher-seeded institutions the opportunity to host when the geographical guidelines would normally not have permitted this opportunity. It is not within the sports committees purview to approve the additional flight for seeding purposes (i.e., to create a specific matchup based on seeding; to avoid a matchup based on seeding)."

See my example added to the initial post for an example of how this would work. In this case, Lawrence, the #2 team in the Midwest region, was not able to host because of the "minimize the flights" constraint. The pilot rule would have allowed the committee to keep Lawrence at home rather than making the change that the constraint forced it to do.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 21, 2008, 05:45:11 PM
Future of Division II (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_video/newmedia/DrJordan9-10.html).

President of D-II talks about D-II and the challenges that they face.

He talks about D-II as a destination.  D-III schools that chose D-II as a destination include:

CSU-East Bay was geographically isolated from several D-III schools.

Maryville MO decided that its peer institutions were in D-II.  An extensive discussion was conducted on the SLIAC board about this decision.  SLIAC Men's Post 5234 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4409.5234)  Maryville goes in 2009-10.

Lake Erie added football.  The AMCC is a non-football conference, so there may not have been as much "glue" to  hold LEC in D-3.

After years as a D-III, Lincoln PA went to the Central IAC where its traditional rivals were.

Add Chowan, Seton Hill and Chestnut Hill and you have a varied assortment of schools.


Those are the only ones I can think of who have gone to D-II in the last 2-3 years.  Maybe twice as many schools have come to D-III in that period!  (Did I miss any others?)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2008, 04:21:28 PM
Legislative proposals for January 2009 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=39597)

QuoteThe Division III Management Council endorsed a 2009 Convention proposal during its fall meeting to permit student-athletes in six team sports to participate in one date of competition during the nontraditional season without being charged with a season of participation.

In addition to recommending that the Division III Presidents Council support that proposal, which is sponsored by two member conferences, the Management Council asked the presidents to oppose proposals that would exempt conference championships and postseason tournaments from the requirement to give student-athletes one day a week off from athletically related events, and permit institutions to view NCAA computer data throughout a season related to criteria for ranking and selecting teams for a championship.

Yea!!!!  Maybe Pat Coleman can get those data published on these sites!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2008, 04:58:09 PM
Video discussing the move by Claflin from NAIA-1 to D-II...the factors, the benefits, a few of the challenges...

D-II Claflin University (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_video/newmedia/Claflin11-7512_Stream001.html)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on December 02, 2008, 08:38:57 AM
Ohio Dominican is making the same move.

And here's an alternative athletics model:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/sports/02club.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/sports/02club.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on December 10, 2008, 08:03:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i16/16b02001.htm

From the issue dated December 12, 2008

Small colleges prey on student-athletes' varsity dreams

By ANONYMOUS

As a college professor and parent of a college athlete, I have been reading with great interest reports that small colleges have been seeking to increase their enrollments by promoting their sports programs. An article in The Chronicle last fall, for example, described how the president of Adrian College, in Michigan, devised a plan to raise enrollment by expanding the institution's intercollegiate-athletics program and assigning recruiting quotas to its coaches. Adrian's recruiting plan requires its 16 head coaches to sign up almost 200 athletes per year. Coaches who fail to meet their assigned quotas risk losing their jobs. The total enrollment has risen to a decades-high level of almost 1,500. Adrian's president referred to his stream of new admissions as a "fountain of youth."

While I have no problem with colleges and universities trying to raise enrollment through encouraging student participation in athletics, I do question the integrity of the recruiting and admissions process if institutions do not openly share their strategies with prospective students and parents. That includes being truthful regarding a student's likely status on varsity teams.

Our family has had a personal, less-than-ideal experience with a similar NCAA Division III intercollegiate athletics program at another private liberal-arts college. Our daughter was heavily recruited to play a varsity sport at the aforesaid college. She received numerous telephone calls, e-mail messages, and mailings from a coach that focused on her future as a collegiate player. Together with at least one of her parents each time, she visited the college on three occasions, one visit an overnight stay with a player from the team on which, we were led to believe, she would be an important member. In addition to the efforts of the coach, the admissions office was also on board, sending our daughter and family a barrage of promotion materials about the college.

After doing all she was asked, including attending summer and preseason camps and working tirelessly in practice, she and several other members of the team, who were part of an overflowing roster, were informed early in the season that they would not be active players in varsity games, might not even dress for games. They would play on a reserve team instead.

Our daughter shared with us that being recruited to play a varsity sport reaffirmed efforts she had made in school athletics; being put on the reserve team called into question what she had learned and accomplished. Moreover, it was also a distraction from other aspects of her college life. She was always wondering what practice she would be attending. Having two separate teams created an unwholesome competition and division on the team of a small college where relationships are very personal — a reason for attending a small institution in the first place.

At home, we simply could not understand. We watched in bewilderment when our daughter was allowed to dress for varsity play but stood on the sidelines during games won or lost by wide margins. We spent countless hours asking ourselves questions about the nature of athletics at small colleges that we probably should have asked during the recruiting process.

Our daughter could have gone to almost any other college or university in the United States. She graduated from a high school for the gifted with a 4.0 grade-point average; she played a varsity sport there, making the all-city roster her junior and senior years. She wanted to attend a college with a good academic reputation and play a varsity sport. She was led to believe that she could do so at College X, so she closed doors on the application process to other colleges.

We have thought long and hard about her present situation, including our possible naïveté. However, we have sensed that there was something we were not understanding about the whole process. The recruiting and admissions tactics The Chronicle described at Adrian College seem to be the answer. Perhaps our daughter was simply used to raise enrollment. Was her college hoping that, after securing her as a student, her experiences in class and her newfound friends would persuade her to continue, despite having only reserve status on the varsity team?

In consultation with colleagues and coaches elsewhere, I learned that the recruiting and admissions strategies we saw practiced are not uncommon at many small private NCAA Division III colleges. It seems that the enticement of playing intercollegiate athletics speaks to thousands of high-school athletes throughout America who want to continue playing organized sports; at the same time, it satisfies an institution's desire to maintain or increase enrollment and tuition dollars.

It is hard to put into words the frustration and distress that our daughter has experienced because her coach and her college were not truthful about the recruiting process. One day a former high-school teammate, friend, and walk-on player at another college "Facebooked" her excitement about playing against our daughter and her team in a forthcoming varsity contest. Dejectedly our daughter wrote back to say that she would not dress for the game and most likely would not be able to see her friend because she would be at a reserve-team practice on another field.

As a result of her experience, she has decided to transfer to another college, where she will be a member of the honors program, will receive generous scholarships, and will, we hope, be able to continue to play her sport.

Students and their families should not be used or manipulated by presidents, admissions counselors, or coaches to further the enrollment interests or quotas of colleges. Colleges should know better. Students like our daughter deserve better.

The author asked for anonymity because his daughter is still enrolled at the college he describes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education




Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 10, 2008, 10:20:12 AM
Or she may be put on the JV team again because possibly she isn't as good as the players dressing with the Varsity?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on December 10, 2008, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on December 10, 2008, 10:20:12 AM
Or she may be put on the JV team again because possibly she isn't as good as the players dressing with the Varsity?

That probably was the case, but let her know that up front so that she and her parents can make an informed decision as to where to attend college.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 10, 2008, 12:41:12 PM
Quote from: wilburt on December 10, 2008, 12:22:06 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on December 10, 2008, 10:20:12 AM
Or she may be put on the JV team again because possibly she isn't as good as the players dressing with the Varsity?

That probably was the case, but let her know that up front so that she and her parents can make an informed decision as to where to attend college.

From reading the letter I never once got the impression that she had been promised a spot on the varsity.  It seems that possibly family and child were making assumptions.  She is a freshman on a team with a large roster and several freshman, they should have just done the math.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on December 10, 2008, 01:35:18 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on December 10, 2008, 12:41:12 PM
From reading the letter I never once got the impression that she had been promised a spot on the varsity.  It seems that possibly family and child were making assumptions.  She is a freshman on a team with a large roster and several freshman, they should have just done the math.

I don't get the impression that she was promised a spot on the varsity either, but then why the heavy recruiting (emails, calls, mailings) from the athletic department then in addition to the regular materials from the admissions office staff? It kind of seems like a bait and switch.  Dangle the athletic carrot, but what we (the school) really wants is the tuition dollars.

Now in fairness, I have seen this in reverse for Division III (albeit not too often).  A person decides to come to a school (that he might not otherwise get admitted to) cause he is heavily recruited by the athletic department.  He then decides not to play sports at all in order to focus on academics, or he gets a girlfriend or whatever.  Since he is not on athletic scholarship the athletic department is in a bind.  It cuts both ways in Division III.     
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 10, 2008, 02:21:13 PM
To me, at least, the letter writer sounded like a 'helicopter parent' with little clue about athletics.  Playing JV as a freshman is not at all unusual even for highly recruited athletes.  (Keelan Amelianovich was exclusively JV as a freshman at IWU; his sophomore year he was CCIW POY, and was an All-American his junior and senior years.)  It's called developing and waiting your turn, concepts the letter writer seems unfamiliar with.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on December 10, 2008, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 10, 2008, 02:21:13 PMIt's called developing and waiting your turn, concepts the letter writer seems unfamiliar with.

That's entirely the point.  Whether he should have known or whether he should have been informed by the athletic department is the real issue! It seems as both parties in this matter were working on assumptions.  If so who is to blame?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 10, 2008, 02:42:38 PM
Quote from: wilburt on December 10, 2008, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 10, 2008, 02:21:13 PMIt's called developing and waiting your turn, concepts the letter writer seems unfamiliar with.

That's entirely the point.  Whether he should have known or whether he should have been informed by the athletic department is the real issue! It seems as both parties in this matter were working on assumptions.  If so who is to blame?

Really no one is to blame, it is called life, sometimes ish happens.  Call it a lesson learned, don't assume, ask for verification.  If you don't ask you have no one to blame but yourself.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 19, 2008, 02:53:50 PM
Legislative update (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=42590)  Links to three short videos are available.  (Total viewing time is about 20-25 minutes.)

Interesting proposals that will be voted upon at the January meeting include these:

Sponsored by the NJAC and CUNYAC:  The uniform start date for XC, Women's VB, Tennis, FH, Soccer and Golf (Not football tho') of August 15th.


Sponsored by the Capital AC and the CSAC (altho' the CSAC has withdrawn its sponsorships.)
QuoteA membership-sponsored proposal to permit institutions to view NCAA data throughout a season related to criteria for ranking and selecting teams for a championship. (One of the two conferences that initially submitted the proposal has withdrawn its sponsorship, but the proposal was properly submitted and remains on the Convention agenda.)

If approved, then this would be budgeted, the computer program created and tested.  Its implementation would be anticipated by the "Winter 2111 Championships".  I guess that means the 2010-11 basketball season for example.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: DanPadavona on December 22, 2008, 05:05:27 AM
Our daughter was heavily recruited to play a varsity sport at the aforesaid college. She received numerous telephone calls, e-mail messages, and mailings from a coach that focused on her future as a collegiate player. Together with at least one of her parents each time, she visited the college on three occasions, one visit an overnight stay with a player from the team on which, we were led to believe, she would be an important member.

-----------------------------------------------------

While we are left to consider the entire story having only heard one side of it, I do believe the above snippet is highly suggestive that the college misled the daughter and her parents.

We have a few explanations to consider:

1)  The anonymous letter writer is exaggerating the situation due to sour grapes, and as Knightstalker alluded is perhaps naive of his daughter's athletic ability.

2)  The letter writer is being truthful, in which case either

- The college lied to them in a blatant attempt to boost enrollment
or
- The recruiter was a terrible judge of talent if he/she pegged her as an important team member and yet she ended up on a reserve squad.

I wonder what colleges and their athletic programs intend when every summer we hear boasts of 200 or 250 kids in camp for football.  Only 22 can start, and arguably only 35-40 will play meaningful roles if you include special teams.  Which leave 150 to 200 or more kids to hold clipboards, or at best join freshman or JV teams.  And there are only so many meaningful roles to fill on a JV team too.  I don't think having 250 kids in a football camp does anything but boost enrollment for the institution.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on December 22, 2008, 10:15:39 AM
Also it gives each of the 250 kids an opportunity for recreation, for a special type of male camraderie, for development of certain skills, for his testing of certain of his psychic and physical qualities against others and for better appreciation of a prominent American game - which altogether for many kids is quite a bit.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: WWWRHH on December 22, 2008, 02:43:27 PM
Our family has a wide range of experience with D3 sports and I think with our children we went into the process with our eyes fairly wide open.  However, establishing (and accepting) one's role is often a difficult process for both the player and his / her parents.

The quality of D3 sports are often under estimated, and it is a shock to some families that even end of the benchers were stars in high school.

A lot of information can be gained just from examining team rosters and statistics.  There are almost always fewer seniors on the roster of any sport than freshman, and while freshman often make up a large percentage of the roster only a few get signficant playing time.  (Hope College's women's basketball program has two seniors on the roster and both are starting for the first time.  As freshman, their playing time was very limited.  They have out lasted several former team mates, worked hard and been part of a successful program.  I don't think it has always been easy for either one, but I suspect they are happy they persevered.  Not everyone wants to take that route.  However, I believe all of their former team mates found their own place in the broader college community and will graduate this spring.)

I am sure most coaches seek to provide players with an honest assesment of how they might fit into a program, but this is difficult since there are so many unknowns associated with non-scholarship programs.

Coaches must often over recruit, since without scholarships there is no way to pin point how many players will actually enroll. 

Sometimes very talented players unexpectedly opt to go D3 for a variety of reasons.  Since D3 rosters are filled by try outs and open competition, it is difficult for a coach to promise - except for a few exceptional players - significant playing time.

In other cases, talented players often develop interests that draw them away from athletic programs that had counted on their participation.

As was pointed out in an earlier post, some of the best D3 players are late bloomers and unfinished products when they arrive on campus, but develop into real contributors through hard work.

D3 recruiting is not an exact science.  Coaches often have fewer opportunities to scout a player and fewer of the players are playing in exclusive AAU / travel leagues and camps (amazingly many spend more time focused on academics than preparing to be lottery picks).  High school stats are not easily comparable since good players from large schools in competitive conferences may have less stellar numbers than average players in small school conferences.

Although some coaches may try to find good players through high volume and luck of the draw, this was not our experience.  Our children were not highly recruited, but IMHO became successful D3 athletes.  One was discouraged by some college coaches from trying to compete at this level  but used the opportunity that D3 provides to develop into a very competitive player.

I could go on, but I will close with these observations:

The transition from high school to college is easier for sports that emphasize individual performance such as cross country, swimming and track.  In these sports stats are easily comparable, there are fewer subjective decisions that coaches must make, and there is generally plenty of opportunity for everyone to participate.

Athletics should play only a secondary role in the college selection process.  Since the reality of the situation is that most freshman on the roster will not be there three years later, a student should only attend a college that will meet their needs apart from varsity sports. 

Parents should gather facts, ask questions and help keep their child's expectations realistic.   

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 22, 2008, 06:27:17 PM
WWWRHH,

That may be the best summary of d3 athletics recruiting I have ever seen - +K!

I especially like the points about coaches having far less information to work with (especially with team sports), and coaches having far less certainty about who will actually show up (since there are no binding 'letters of intent' with no scholarships).

BTW, while 'late developers' is a good point also, if it was my post you were referring to then just for the record Keelan Amelianovich was NOT a late developer!  The Titans were loaded his first year (lacking only a PG, so Adam Dauksas [also a future AA] was the ONLY freshman to play varsity).  That JV team went undefeated (I believe - I've found no records for JVs) and so dominated their opponents that everyone knew the IWU class of 2006 was special.  While I often have high hopes, 2006 is the only year I've felt 3rd in the nation was disappointing - having two 1st-team AAs (and a third, Zach Freeman, the next year) will do that to a fan! ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: DanPadavona on December 22, 2008, 11:24:28 PM
Absolutely WWWRHH.  Very well written, and I could not agree more.  +K!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: iwumichigander on December 26, 2008, 08:42:21 PM
Quote from: WWWRHH on December 22, 2008, 02:43:27 PM
Parents should gather facts, ask questions and help keep their child's expectations realistic.   
I'll agree with Mr. Ypsi - your entire post an excellent summary of d3 athletics recruiting.  I wanted to specifically address the quoted sentence.

All too often prospective student athletes, nor parents, do not ask the hard questions they might not want to hear the answer to - Coach, based on what you know now 1)Where do you see me playing as a freshman?  2) What are the things I need to work on now in terms of strength, conditioning or skill sets? 3) What do you feel are my strengths and weaknesses?  4)What's the priority order to make improvements?  5) If I correct or improve all the above before freshman year, where do you see my playing as a freshman; and, when do you (if you) see me as a starter?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 12, 2009, 10:23:54 AM
The NCAA convention is this weekend.  The D-III business session will consider the work done by the Presidents Council published in "white papers" addressing such membership issues as future divisional growth and diversity.  Here is the link to the September news release for your review.

"White papers" summary (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=40135)

Here is the full White Paper pdf for your reading pleasure.

White paper pdf (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/DIII_MC_PC/Misc/White_papers/content.pdf)

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sac on January 12, 2009, 06:01:40 PM
Quote•  Implement the increased sport sponsorship requirements slated for 2010-11, consistent with the "broad-based program" philosophy.

• Amend the membership penalty structure and timetable to better distinguish requirements and related penalties, giving top priority to the fulfillment of sports-sponsorship requirements.

Ralph you wouldn't happen to have the sport sponsorship requirement handy would you?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 12, 2009, 07:52:35 PM
Quote from: sac on January 12, 2009, 06:01:40 PM
Quote•  Implement the increased sport sponsorship requirements slated for 2010-11, consistent with the "broad-based program" philosophy.

• Amend the membership penalty structure and timetable to better distinguish requirements and related penalties, giving top priority to the fulfillment of sports-sponsorship requirements.

Ralph you wouldn't happen to have the sport sponsorship requirement handy would you?
Officially, no. Sorry.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2009, 09:33:36 PM
NCAA website notifies us that Myles Brand is undergoing chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer.   :o

Bummer, bummer...

Our prayers are with Dr Brand!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2009, 09:39:52 PM
2009 Legislative Votes (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=44057)

The Capital AC withdrew its request to have contemporaneous access to the Championship Selections Computer Databases for the respective sports, but requested "brainstorming" to deal with the issue.

QuoteThe Capital Athletic Conference withdrew its proposal to permit institutions to view NCAA data throughout a season related to criteria for ranking and selecting teams for a championship. But in doing so, an athletics director from a CAC school, Mary Washington's Ed Hegmann, asked the Division III Championship Committee to work with the membership in "brainstorming" ways of monitoring the accuracy of data and helping coaches better understand the selection process.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2009, 09:48:07 PM
Growing influence of recruiting in D-III (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=44044)

Favorable impact on enrollment when LaGrange added football...

QuoteLaGrange President F. Stuart Geller provided an illustration of how adding football influenced the institution's enrollment. Although Geller was initially uninterested in doing so, the faculty and athletics department eventually voted to move forward with an implementation plan for football that took 20 months. The more than 100 students who turned out on the first day of tryouts and the 3,500 fans that showed up for the first game of the program's history shattered the institution's modest goals of drawing 80 young men to try out for the team and of attracting 500 to attend the first game. The school underestimated the level of interest from the community and alumni, said Geller, who acknowledged that football has added far more to the institution than he imagined.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: D3Lunatic on January 18, 2009, 04:21:15 AM
Its important to note that the D3 athlete is often very skilled and very intelligent. He/She might have been trained at thier sport from a very young age as well as had great coaching at the often above avg highschools they attend.

D3 athletes tend to be physically unprepared or physically underdeveloped for D1 programs to actively recruit them in highschool. This can explain why top D3 schools can compete with mid to low D1 schools. Where low D1 schools recieve maxed out higschool stars, with little room for improvement, that may have a D1 body and thus get in the door. D3 schools often recieve a physically underdeveloped, yet highly motivated and highly skilled/drilled athletet that is both smart and dedicated to thier sport.

At good D3 programs weight training can be very intense and thus these young and self-motivated athletes arrive in an environment that is very conducive to thier success, allowing them to grow and develop physically. This player who may be a D3 All Conference player in his/her sportt, had he achieved such a physical state in his Jr yr of highschool, would likely have D1 scholarships to his first choice school.

To summarize and conclude... D3 programs are highly competitive. It takes a very self-motivated and determined athlete to achieve the star potential he/she might have experienced in highschool. Where D1 players have thier campus life literally managed from practices, meetings, team meals, lifts, and even school councelling all falling under thier coaches umbrella of controll. The D3 athlete has much more freedom that  a great personal comittment and level of discipline to achieve his/her goals as an athlete. For this reason, D3 recruits sometimes walk on to campus and relize they have stepped into a very heated competition for playing time. The great thing about sports is they constantly challenge us to become better. better people. D3 sports are no exception. The high level of competition within and between progams, as well as the necessary personal drive that is in e/a very comitted athlete at the d3 level is a recipe for molding wonderful successful people!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 19, 2009, 12:27:45 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2009, 09:33:36 PM
NCAA website notifies us that Myles Brand is undergoing chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer.   :o

Bummer, bummer...

Our prayers are with Dr Brand!

Unfortunately, there will be some from my home state who will react to this news in an altogether different manner... :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on January 20, 2009, 08:31:18 PM
Posted on the Centennial  blog on NCAA Convention review

The 103rd annual NCAA Convention came to a close on Saturday in Washington, D.C. and as Conventions go, this one was pretty quiet. The Centennial Conference was 8-for-8 on its votes on legislative proposals, siding with the majority position. The delegates voted against August 15 as a new date for the start of the fall preseason, while voting in the affirmative to specify that a season of participation shall not be counted when a student participates in the one date of nontraditional competition (baseball, field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, softball, women's volleyball).

The most important legislation that was adopted specifies that each head coach shall be certified in first aid, CPR and AED. Endorsed by the national SAAC, the vote carried 420-33-6.

The Convention concluded the service of John Fry, president of Franklin & Marshall College, as chair of the NCAA Division III Presidents Council. Fry was recognized by the delegates for his service to the Association.

enjoy
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 04, 2009, 08:09:29 PM
NEAC-NAC affiliation (http://www.nacathletics.com/news/NEAC_partnership) for baseball, women's lacrosse, and men's and women's tennis.

Here is some creative leadership among these two conferences to maintain an AQ bid.

This preserves the opportunities for student-athletes in these sports.

QuoteFeb 4, 2009

NAC, NEAC enter partnership to expand associate membership

The North Atlantic Conference (NAC) and North Eastern Athletic Conference (NEAC) have entered into a partnership to expand associate membership. The NEAC will gain associate members in the sports of baseball and women's tennis while the NAC will add members for  men's tennis and women's lacrosse.

The partnership, which impacts nearly all of the current NEAC and NAC membership, provides a conference championship opportunity for student-athletes of both geographically diverse conferences.

"The North Atlantic Conference is committed to providing equitable opportunities for our student-athletes in all sports," said Dave Wolk, President of Castleton State College and Chair of the NAC Presidents Council. "This partnership will help us meet this goal in sports where conference sponsorship is limited. Both conferences support the Division III philosophy and we welcome the opportunity to join with like-minded institutions to ensure the best possible experiences for all student-athletes."

In the sport of baseball, NAC members Castleton, Husson, Lyndon St., Maine-Farmington and Thomas will join the NEAC as associate members. Divisional play will begin in the spring of 2010. Each division will hold a championship and the two divisional champions will meet for a three game series to determine the conference champion. The conference championship site will rotate between the WEST (hosted at either SUNY Cobleskill or SUNYIT) and the EAST (hosted by Castleton). The NEAC will maintain the automatic qualifier they currently hold to the NCAA Division III Championship.

NEAC members Cazenovia, College of St. Elizabeth, Keuka, Penn. St-Abington, Wells and Wilson will join the NAC as associate members in women's lacrosse. Medaille, a current NEAC associate member, will join the NAC as well. Divisional play will begin in the spring of 2010. Each division will hold a championship and the two divisional champions will meet for a conference champion game. The conference championship site will rotate between the EAST (hosted at either Castleton or Green Mountain) and the WEST (hosted by SUNYIT or SUNY Cobleskill). Beginning in 2010, the NAC will begin a two year waiting period to qualify for an automatic bid to the NCAA Division III Championship.

A similar divisional structure will begin for men's and women's tennis in the spring of 2010. NAC members Castleton, Johnson St., Lyndon St. and Thomas will join the NEAC as associate members in women's tennis. Divisional play for the EAST will be in the fall with a divisional champion crowned. The WEST division will compete in the spring and the two divisional champions will meet for the conference championship in the spring. The NEAC will maintain the automatic qualifier they currently hold to the NCAA Division III Championship.

In men's tennis, NEAC members Keuka, Penn St.-Abington, Penn St.-Berks, Penn St.-Harrisburg and SUNY Cobleskill will join the NAC as associate members. SUNY Oneonta, a current NEAC associate member, will join the NAC as well. Both divisions will compete in the spring with the divisional winners meeting for the conference championship. In 2010, the NAC will begin a two year waiting period to qualify for an automatic bid to the NCAA Division III Championship.

"I think this new initiative presents a great opportunity for our Conference and our student athletes," said Keuka College President Dr. Joseph G. Burke who currently serves as Chair of the NEAC President's Council. "We increase our regional exposure and our student athletes have the opportunity to play against teams that they would not normally have the opportunity to play."

NEAC Sponsored Sports    
Baseball
       
EAST
Castleton
Husson
Lyndon St.
Maine-Farmington
Thomas

WEST
Cazenovia
Keuka
Penn St.-Abington
Penn St.-Berks
Penn St.-Harrisburg
SUNY Cobleskill
SUNYIT
   
Women's Tennis
EAST
Castleton
Johnson St.
Lyndon St.
Thoma

WEST
Col. of St. Elizabeth
Keuka
Penn St.-Abington
Penn St.-Berks
Penn St.-Harrisburg
SUNY Cobleskill
Wells
Wilson

NAC Sponsored Sports   
Men's Tennis


EAST
Castleton
Green Mountain
Johnson St.
Lyndon St.
Thomas

WEST
Keuka
Penn St.-Abington
Penn St.-Berks
Penn St.-Harrisburg
SUNY Cobleskill
SUNY Oneonta
   
Women's Lacrosse
EAST
Green Mountain
Husson
Maine-Farmington
Thomas

WEST
Cazenovia
Col. of St. Elizabeth
Keuka
Medaille
Penn St.-Abington
Wells
Wilson

Copied for archival purposes...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 09, 2009, 09:31:05 PM
Iowa Conference Expansion (http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=5B87A1C5-5056-B82A-3711FC44EB0D970A)

Thanks to Alfredeneumann on the IIAC Football board for this note.

No names mentioned, just the desire to expand to an even number of schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2009, 11:49:42 PM
JHU drops Men's and Women's Varsity Crew.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=45466
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on February 16, 2009, 04:02:03 AM
How about one of these institutions having the political courage to engage in the indicated shut down of one of their very expensive sacred cows rather than solely to pick at the margins with closure of inexpensive but vulnerable minor programs? In the case of Johns Hopkins how about elimination of lacrosse?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2009, 12:12:09 PM
Sponsorship rates increase for male and female sports (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=45814)

QuoteSponsorship rates increase for male and female sports
February 16, 2009
By Leilana McKindra
The NCAA News

The recently released 2007-08 NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report reveals that participation levels continued to surge for both male and female student-athletes. After total participation surpassed 400,000 last year, that number grew to 412,768 NCAA student-athletes who participated in championship sports in 2007-08. The average institution had about 400 student-athletes, an increase of 16 over last year's figures.

The number of championship sports teams for men and women also jumped by 91 and 100, respectively, from the previous year. Overall for 2007-08, member institutions sponsored 9,380 women's teams and 8,302 men's teams for a total of 17,682 championship sport teams.

The largest gains for both men and women came from Division III, which increased by 49 women's championship sport teams and 63 men's teams in 2007-08, followed by Division I, which increased by 42 and 23 women's and men's championship sports teams, respectively.

The number of women's championship sport teams sponsored has increased annually for the past 26 years, including in 2007-08. This year's report also continued a 12-year trend of institutions sponsoring more championship sport teams for women than for men. In comparison, the number of men's championship sport teams sponsored has decreased four of the past 10 years. That number, however, has been on an upswing since 2003-04, hitting a record high in 2007-08.

Basketball was again the most commonly sponsored championship sport for men and women, a trend that has continued since 1981-82. Volleyball, cross country, soccer, softball, tennis and track and field were the next most frequently sponsored sports for women. Behind basketball, the most commonly sponsored sports for men were cross country, baseball, golf, soccer, tennis, track and field, and football.

The same general trends were seen divisionally. Basketball was the most common for women, although in Division I, cross country was sponsored nearly as much. Although the same top eight sports for men were reflected in each division, there was some variation in order. For instance, men's soccer was sponsored nearly as often as basketball in Division III, while men's soccer is the fifth most sponsored sport in Division II.

In 2007-08, the sport with the highest number of women's teams added was lacrosse, with 17, followed by outdoor track and field, and indoor track and field. Meanwhile, the sport with the highest number of men's teams added was outdoor track and field, also with 17 new programs, followed by indoor track and field, lacrosse, and cross country.

Indoor track and field topped the list of sports registering the highest number of men's and women's programs that were dropped, 15 and 10 teams, respectively.

The result of schools adding and dropping teams in 2007-08 was a net increase of 32 men's teams and 50 women's teams. Since 1988-89, when this figure was first included in the report, there has been a net gain of 234 men's teams and 2,342 women's teams.

Most of the net losses in men's sports are from Division I. In 2007-08, the division lost of 14 teams and since 1988-89 has lost nearly 300 squads. Comparatively, there has been a net gain of 700 women's teams in Division I over the same period, with just two years in which there was a net loss (1988-89 and 2007-08).

In the most recent report, lacrosse was the women's sport with the largest net gain (15), while lacrosse and outdoor track were the men's sports that produced the greatest net gain (11 each). With a loss of three teams, rifle was the women's sport with the biggest net loss. Meanwhile, rifle and wrestling lost three programs each in 2007-08 to generate the largest net loss for men's sports.

Although historically, the average number of female student-athletes has increased and the average number of male student-athletes has decreased since 1981-82, the latest report revealed a significant jump in the average number of male student-athletes per institution. Compared to the 1981-82 academic year, on average, each NCAA institution had about 69 more females and seven more males in the 2007-08 totals.

Continuing a 26-year trend, football had the most participants of any men's sport, registering more than twice as many participants as baseball, the sport with the second highest number of participants, followed by track and field, soccer, basketball, and cross country. That trend is apparent by division as well.

Soccer tops the list of sports with the most female student-athletes, followed by track and field, softball, basketball, volleyball, cross country, swimming and diving, and tennis. The same was true divisionally, except in Division I, in which track and field still has the highest number of female participants.

Copied for archival purposes
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2009, 12:15:12 PM
Quote
The largest gains for both men and women came from Division III, which increased by 49 women's championship sport teams and 63 men's teams in 2007-08.

It is not clear how many of those additional teams came from new D-III members and how many were existing members adding new sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2009, 11:35:48 PM
Three part series by Jason Dannelly in his column in Victory Sports Network,

Future of the NAIA

Part I (http://www.collegefanz.com/blogs/jasondannelly/2009/02/12/the-future-of-the-naia-part-1-of-3)

Part II (http://www.collegefanz.com/blogs/jasondannelly/2009/02/17/the-future-of-the-naia-part-2-of-3)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: HSCTiger74 on February 18, 2009, 12:30:37 AM
Quote from: frank uible on February 16, 2009, 04:02:03 AM
How about one of these institutions having the political courage to engage in the indicated shut down of one of their very expensive sacred cows rather than solely to pick at the margins with closure of inexpensive but vulnerable minor programs? In the case of Johns Hopkins how about elimination of lacrosse?

From someone who spent a good portion of his high school and college years as a resident of the Baltimore area, trust me Frank ... Hopkins will eliminate lacrosse at about the same time Alabama eliminates football.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on February 18, 2009, 01:22:46 AM
Malone and Walsh in the Canton, Ohio area are seeking to move from NAIA to D2.  They are joining Ohio Dominican and Urbana who have begun the process already and Lake Erie moving up from D3.  Should be a new D2 conference in the making.  I'd bet Mercyhurst and Gannon in NW PA could be lured away from the conference with all the Pa state schools that they just joined.  Findlay and Ashland have had success in the conference they are both in, but I could see Tiffin joining as well.  Central State, St Josephs (IN), Indianapolis, and Kentucky Wesleyan could also be interested.  They could also join the Great Lakes Valley Conference that several of the mentioned teams belong to that doesn't sponsor football and get it to start.  It could have East and West divisions for most sports and one for the football schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 18, 2009, 02:04:11 AM
In looking at the trends, there is not a state of equilibrium between the NCAA and the NAIA. Is it the trickle down of the D-1 Hoops tourney that is doing that (as well as the bucketload of caysh money dollars once they decide to do the right thing and have a D-1A football playoff)?

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 18, 2009, 09:51:23 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 18, 2009, 02:04:11 AM
In looking at the trends, there is not a state of equilibrium between the NCAA and the NAIA. Is it the trickle down of the D-1 Hoops tourney that is doing that (as well as the bucketload of caysh money dollars once they decide to do the right thing and have a D-1A football playoff)?


The NCAA is never going to see money from D1 football, even if they agree to a playoff.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on February 18, 2009, 03:08:39 PM
Quote from: HSCTiger74 on February 18, 2009, 12:30:37 AM
Quote from: frank uible on February 16, 2009, 04:02:03 AM
How about one of these institutions having the political courage to engage in the indicated shut down of one of their very expensive sacred cows rather than solely to pick at the margins with closure of inexpensive but vulnerable minor programs? In the case of Johns Hopkins how about elimination of lacrosse?

From someone who spent a good portion of his high school and college years as a resident of the Baltimore area, trust me Frank ... Hopkins will eliminate lacrosse at about the same time Alabama eliminates football.

I suspect the university would rather sell its medical school and hospital to a bunch of well-heeled faith-healer quacks than eliminate lacrosse.  :P
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 18, 2009, 03:10:51 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 18, 2009, 09:51:23 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 18, 2009, 02:04:11 AM
In looking at the trends, there is not a state of equilibrium between the NCAA and the NAIA. Is it the trickle down of the D-1 Hoops tourney that is doing that (as well as the bucketload of caysh money dollars once they decide to do the right thing and have a D-1A football playoff)?


The NCAA is never going to see money from D1 football, even if they agree to a playoff.

Unless the NCAA starts it up. I think they should start it and whoever wants to join can join. The NCAA eventually killed the NIT which was the more high profile tournament in the beginning. No reason they can't do it again.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on February 18, 2009, 04:31:40 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 18, 2009, 03:10:51 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 18, 2009, 09:51:23 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 18, 2009, 02:04:11 AM
In looking at the trends, there is not a state of equilibrium between the NCAA and the NAIA. Is it the trickle down of the D-1 Hoops tourney that is doing that (as well as the bucketload of caysh money dollars once they decide to do the right thing and have a D-1A football playoff)?


The NCAA is never going to see money from D1 football, even if they agree to a playoff.

Unless the NCAA starts it up. I think they should start it and whoever wants to join can join. The NCAA eventually killed the NIT which was the more high profile tournament in the beginning. No reason they can't do it again.

I remember in the 70's when winning the NIT was a bigger deal than winning the NCAA tournament, but that may have had to do with living in broadcast range of NY radio and TV stations, pre cable era.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on February 18, 2009, 04:36:16 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on February 18, 2009, 01:22:46 AM
Malone and Walsh in the Canton, Ohio area are seeking to move from NAIA to D2.  They are joining Ohio Dominican and Urbana who have begun the process already and Lake Erie moving up from D3.  Should be a new D2 conference in the making.  I'd bet Mercyhurst and Gannon in NW PA could be lured away from the conference with all the Pa state schools that they just joined.  Findlay and Ashland have had success in the conference they are both in, but I could see Tiffin joining as well.  Central State, St Josephs (IN), Indianapolis, and Kentucky Wesleyan could also be interested.  They could also join the Great Lakes Valley Conference that several of the mentioned teams belong to that doesn't sponsor football and get it to start.  It could have East and West divisions for most sports and one for the football schools.

The PSAC is a tough DII conference, I could see Mercyhurst and Gannon moving out if they can, but staying in the PSAC would or should make them stronger teams.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on February 18, 2009, 04:51:07 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on February 18, 2009, 04:31:40 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 18, 2009, 03:10:51 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 18, 2009, 09:51:23 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 18, 2009, 02:04:11 AM
In looking at the trends, there is not a state of equilibrium between the NCAA and the NAIA. Is it the trickle down of the D-1 Hoops tourney that is doing that (as well as the bucketload of caysh money dollars once they decide to do the right thing and have a D-1A football playoff)?


The NCAA is never going to see money from D1 football, even if they agree to a playoff.

Unless the NCAA starts it up. I think they should start it and whoever wants to join can join. The NCAA eventually killed the NIT which was the more high profile tournament in the beginning. No reason they can't do it again.

I remember in the 70's when winning the NIT was a bigger deal than winning the NCAA tournament, but that may have had to do with living in broadcast range of NY radio and TV stations, pre cable era.

'Stalker:

I don't know about the 1970s, but in the 1950s winning the NIT was certainly at least the equal of -- if not seen as better than -- an NCAA championship. Recall that in 1950 CCNY won them both v. Bradley, though it turns out that both teams were shaving points at the behest of high-stakes gamblers. (I believe some LIU players were also involved.) It took a goodly number of years for collegiate basketball, especially in New York City, to recover from the scandal.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on February 18, 2009, 05:32:48 PM
In 1951 dozens of college players from at least seven colleges (Long Island University, Manhattan College, City College of New York, New York University, Bradley University, University of Kentucky and University of Toledo) were implicated in a point shaving scandal. At that time Madison Square Garden, NYC, the four aforesaid NYC area colleges and the National Invitation Tournament were at the epicenter of college basketball. After the scandal no more. Never again did those four colleges have their prior basketball prestige. Dragged down and losing prestige in the scandal was the NIT, all of whose games at the time were played at Madison Square Garden.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 18, 2009, 05:33:06 PM
In the early days (late 30's up through the CCNY and Kentucky scandals) the NIT was more prestigious than the NCAA. Before the NCAA opened up their tourney to at-large teams the NIT was still a big deal. But as the NCAA tourney grew the NIT became less and less important, until now it's for the mediocre BCS and the good mid-majors.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 18, 2009, 05:46:43 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 18, 2009, 03:10:51 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 18, 2009, 09:51:23 AM
Quote from: smedindy on February 18, 2009, 02:04:11 AM
In looking at the trends, there is not a state of equilibrium between the NCAA and the NAIA. Is it the trickle down of the D-1 Hoops tourney that is doing that (as well as the bucketload of caysh money dollars once they decide to do the right thing and have a D-1A football playoff)?


The NCAA is never going to see money from D1 football, even if they agree to a playoff.

Unless the NCAA starts it up. I think they should start it and whoever wants to join can join. The NCAA eventually killed the NIT which was the more high profile tournament in the beginning. No reason they can't do it again.

Because the top schools in the country don't need the NCAA.  They could just split off and do their own thing with sports.  The schools whose athletic departments are industries unto themselves can run a lot of things.  An AD friend of mine expects it will happen in the next decade, faster if the NCAA wants to hone in on football money.

I have to admit, it makes sense.  48 schools in four leagues of two divisions - eight team playoff in football, 16 or 32 for basketball.  We'd all watch.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on February 18, 2009, 06:54:05 PM
Those numbers would leave some major conferences or certain schools in major conferences out in the cold.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 18, 2009, 07:10:26 PM
Especially since it is not the SAME 48 for football and basketball (or other sports).

Though if they did it, I suppose most people would soon enough forget about Gonzaga, or that Duke sucks in football. ;)  But I'd truly regret never again having a George Mason or a Boise State. >:(
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 18, 2009, 08:53:09 PM
Quote from: frank uible on February 18, 2009, 06:54:05 PM
Those numbers would leave some major conferences or certain schools in major conferences out in the cold.

Well you'd have to assume that schools which do actually put academics first (Vanderbilt, Northwestern, etc) might be out.

It would probably be football driven, though.

Maybe it was 64 schools; I forget the exact number - 64 would make sense.  They could do 8 divisions of 8 teams, have a perfect bracket for basketball.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2009, 01:37:06 PM
New Regional alignments in women's and (possibly men's) soccer (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=46013).

NCAA announces that the Landmark Conference is getting Pool A bids in Men's and Women's Soccer.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: pabegg on February 20, 2009, 08:28:32 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2009, 01:37:06 PM
New Regional alignments in women's and (possibly men's) soccer (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=46013).

NCAA announces that the Landmark Conference is getting Pool A bids in Men's and Women's Soccer.

My understanding was that they were going to make the regional assignment the same for both sexes, so that might involve moving some of the mens' teams as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on February 22, 2009, 09:17:18 AM
The Harrisburg - Patriot News has an interesting article on the current economy and sports. Some of the Athletic Directors from the Centennial Conference and others were ask how they are handling the problems.

http://www.pennlive.com/sports/patriotnews/college/index.ssf?/base/sports/1235261406164720.xml&coll=1 (http://www.pennlive.com/sports/patriotnews/college/index.ssf?/base/sports/1235261406164720.xml&coll=1)

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: wilburt on March 10, 2009, 02:38:54 PM
March 9, 2009


Division III Athletes Continue to Lag in Academic Performance

Andrew Mytelka
The Chronicle of Higher Education

In the second in a series of annual reports on the academic performance of Division III athletes relative to their nonathlete classmates, the College Sports Project said today that the differences between the two groups had narrowed slightly since the last report.

But female athletes continue to do better relative to female nonathletes than male athletes do relative to other male students, and recruited male athletes do worse still, the new report said. The series of reports is based on a longitudinal survey of athletes and other students who matriculated in 2005-6 at about 75 Division III colleges. The project is being financed by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.


second in a series of annual reports
http://www.princeton.edu/~cspo/CDCA_PDF/AAC_U_Presentation.pdf

College Sports Project
http://www.princeton.edu/~cspo/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 11, 2009, 05:20:47 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 11, 2009, 05:09:17 PM
Looks like the NCAA may be considering some "football only" adjustments to the criteria based on the comparatively low number of contests per year compared to other sports.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=46929


Pull quote from the article that Just Bill found...

QuoteAnother item on the committee's agenda called for a tweak in selection criteria for the Division III Football Championship. Since football teams can only play up to 10 regular-season games, selection criteria used by other Division III sports that play more contests are less appropriate for football.

The committee will examine the following criteria in no particular order:

    * Head to head competition.
    * Win/ loss percentage (overall).
    * Results verses ranked opponents.
    * Strength-of-schedule (contests versus all opponents).
    * Opponents' Average Winning Percentage.
    * Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage.
    * Results verses common opponents.
    * Evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (end-of-season performance).

An online process to evaluate officials also will be implemented in the fall of 2009.

One caveat to the above...

QuoteThe proposal must be approved by the Division III Championships Committee before it can be implemented.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 11, 2009, 05:35:07 PM
Quote from: wilburt on March 10, 2009, 02:38:54 PM
March 9, 2009


Division III Athletes Continue to Lag in Academic Performance

Andrew Mytelka
The Chronicle of Higher Education

In the second in a series of annual reports on the academic performance of Division III athletes relative to their nonathlete classmates, the College Sports Project said today that the differences between the two groups had narrowed slightly since the last report.

But female athletes continue to do better relative to female nonathletes than male athletes do relative to other male students, and recruited male athletes do worse still, the new report said. The series of reports is based on a longitudinal survey of athletes and other students who matriculated in 2005-6 at about 75 Division III colleges. The project is being financed by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.


second in a series of annual reports
http://www.princeton.edu/~cspo/CDCA_PDF/AAC_U_Presentation.pdf

College Sports Project
http://www.princeton.edu/~cspo/

Gee, I wonder how Northwestern would fare in their own study  ;D

I've often thought it would be educational to see such differences on a school-by-school level rather than aggregated.  There would no doubt be many surprises, both positive and negative, and some sacred cows could get slaughtered in the process.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 11, 2009, 06:15:23 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 11, 2009, 05:20:47 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 11, 2009, 05:09:17 PM
Looks like the NCAA may be considering some "football only" adjustments to the criteria based on the comparatively low number of contests per year compared to other sports.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=46929


Pull quote from the article that Just Bill found...

QuoteAnother item on the committee's agenda called for a tweak in selection criteria for the Division III Football Championship. Since football teams can only play up to 10 regular-season games, selection criteria used by other Division III sports that play more contests are less appropriate for football.

The committee will examine the following criteria in no particular order:

    * Head to head competition.
    * Win/ loss percentage (overall).
    * Results verses ranked opponents.
    * Strength-of-schedule (contests versus all opponents).
    * Opponents' Average Winning Percentage.
    * Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage.
    * Results verses common opponents.
    * Evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (end-of-season performance).

An online process to evaluate officials also will be implemented in the fall of 2009.

One caveat to the above...

QuoteThe proposal must be approved by the Division III Championships Committee before it can be implemented.

Any sense of whether they literally mean all opponents, or just all d3 opponents regardless of region?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 11, 2009, 11:36:55 PM
I don't know the answer to that but I can tell you that the committee chair told us they basically went almost directly to the secondary criteria because there were so few games, and looked at out-of-region games. At that time I took it to mean out-of-region D-III games, but there's a chance I misunderstood.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 01, 2009, 09:23:08 AM
A shopper's guide to Division II – Part 1 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=47794)

Leaders say reclassifying schools don't always realize the real bottom line


Here is a 3-part series on D-II for your reading.  Parts 2 and 3 will follow.

Pull quotes...
Quote
Grand Valley State generates about 15 percent of its own budget through ticket sales, sponsorships and fund-raising. While that might be better than many Division I schools, the athletics department at almost every school is funded like every other department – that is, the university supplies the funding. Studies have shown that schools that reclassify to Division I might increase their revenues some, but the increase in expenses is far more likely to dwarf the income side of the ledger. -- Grand Valley State AD Tim Selgo

QuoteAs for Division III, presidents and chancellors need to look at the benefit of athletics as potentially increasing the school's bottom line because of net tuition revenue. If people take the time to assess whether they are capable of increasing their total enrollment and overall bottom line by a partial-scholarship model, they might be surprised by the results. I would encourage people to check out the simulation model Division II developed to give institutions an accurate idea of how the partial-scholarship model contributes not only to an institution's financial bottom line but also its total enrollment. -- Stephen Jordan, President of Metropolitan State College of Denver




Part 2 -- "Ticker Envy" (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=47849)




Part 3 -- A case study in reviewing reasons for divisional affiliation (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=47937)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on April 01, 2009, 05:24:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 01, 2009, 09:23:08 AM
A shopper's guide to Division II – Part 1 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=47794)

Leaders say reclassifying schools don't always realize the real bottom line


Here is a 3-part series on D-II for your reading.  Parts 2 and 3 will follow.

Pull quotes...
Quote
Grand Valley State generates about 15 percent of its own budget through ticket sales, sponsorships and fund-raising. While that might be better than many Division I schools, the athletics department at almost every school is funded like every other department – that is, the university supplies the funding. Studies have shown that schools that reclassify to Division I might increase their revenues some, but the increase in expenses is far more likely to dwarf the income side of the ledger. -- Grand Valley State AD Tim Selgo

QuoteAs for Division III, presidents and chancellors need to look at the benefit of athletics as potentially increasing the school's bottom line because of net tuition revenue. If people take the time to assess whether they are capable of increasing their total enrollment and overall bottom line by a partial-scholarship model, they might be surprised by the results. I would encourage people to check out the simulation model Division II developed to give institutions an accurate idea of how the partial-scholarship model contributes not only to an institution's financial bottom line but also its total enrollment. -- Stephen Jordan, President of Metropolitan State College of Denver


  I wonder how many conferences or individual schools have roster limits? And how much more money those schools would generate with 30 to 70 more athletes would bring in!!! 7 figures??
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on April 02, 2009, 10:14:15 AM
FWIW, the WIAC has roster limits in many sports. Football is 100, Men's Basketball is 20.

A little off the D-III topic, but this is a great read from the AD at Grand Valley State.  Because of GVSU's success in D-II they often get asked why they don't move to D-I.  The AD laid it all out and posted it on their website.   It should be required reading for every school who thinks they HAVE to be D-I.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/grva/genrel/auto_pdf/selgod2_09.pdf
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 09, 2009, 09:48:27 PM
Emmanuel (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=48274) is adding Men's Golf in Fall 2009.

This helps the GNAC maintain an AQ in Golf.  The GNAC now has five full members and three affiliates.  The Pool A bid would could come from Pool B.

The Pool System is adding opportunities for student-athletes!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 15, 2009, 08:42:52 PM
From the NCAA today... (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=48639)

QuoteThe Council also will review suggestions from the Championships Committee to address concerns voiced at this year's NCAA Convention about the collection and use of data for selection of teams for Division III championships. The committee listed a mix of procedural and educational steps it believes will help address those concerns.

Council members also are expected to review information from the Division III Membership Committee relating to how well institutions are complying with membership requirements such as sport-sponsorship minimums.

Hmmmm....

I hope that means that we can get accurate real-time data on OWP and OOWP, especially for the coaches and AD's as well as us fans.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 02, 2009, 05:23:19 PM
Financial crisis affecting colleges (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aoglHAxZffTI&refer=exclusive).

D3 Schools mentioned  (that I saw) -- Franklin & Marshall, Simmons College, Kalamazoo, Wooster, Williams, Amherst, Gettysburg and Beloit.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: scottiedoug on May 04, 2009, 11:22:30 AM
NYTimes article about college and university athletic programs being cut and travel being restricted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/sports/04colleges.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: pumkinattack on May 07, 2009, 03:50:17 PM
Quote from: frank uible on February 16, 2009, 04:02:03 AM
How about one of these institutions having the political courage to engage in the indicated shut down of one of their very expensive sacred cows rather than solely to pick at the margins with closure of inexpensive but vulnerable minor programs? In the case of Johns Hopkins how about elimination of lacrosse?

Considering the alumni base at JHU, which I have some familiarity with, that would never happen.  They'd shut down football and basketball first.  Frankly, lacrosse at Hopkins probably generates 1/3 or more of their endowment and general fund donations (if not more) directly or indirectly. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on May 07, 2009, 10:18:19 PM
THis seems like an easy decision in my book with this school+ these d1 athletes don't get the d3 concept:

http://arklatexhomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=62172


plan to see a lot of cuts in sports...when stanford and MIT cut sports, you know school's are feeling the $ crunch...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 08, 2009, 12:03:01 AM
Quote from: cush on May 07, 2009, 10:18:19 PM
THis seems like an easy decision in my book with this school+ these d1 athletes don't get the d3 concept:

http://arklatexhomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=62172


plan to see a lot of cuts in sports...when stanford and MIT cut sports, you know school's are feeling the $ crunch...
I say, do it now and don't keep the athletes hanging.

Release them now and let them go someplace else.  BSC showed them how to do it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on May 08, 2009, 08:55:58 AM
Wouldn't Centenary be an ideal addition to the ASC, Ralph?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 08, 2009, 09:18:36 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on May 08, 2009, 08:55:58 AM
Wouldn't Centenary be an ideal addition to the ASC, Ralph?
Yes.  The ASC inquired about Centenary's interest in becoming a charter member in 1996, but they declined.

Centenary is a member of the Associated Colleges of the South which has a majority of members in the SCAC.

www.colleges.org

(Birmingham Southern, Centre, Hendrix, Millsaps, Rhodes, Trinity, Southwestern, Sewanee)

I think that is where they are headed.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 27, 2009, 09:08:09 PM
Division II explains Life in the Balance effort (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFwhviQyzEw)

The 15:00 video also discusses "season creep".

D-II wants to avoid season creep, with respect to length of season, number of contests, start of the season, especially start of the fall season from early August back to mid-August, to cut back on costs of feeding and housing the athletes before the start of school.

Addressing a "dead-period" from 20 December to 1 January to save money on food and housing.

For the spring, shortening baseball and softball season to fewer contests per season.  Also moving the baseball and softball starts later in the semester.

"D-II is the only division looking at a reduction of the playing seasons." -- Tim Selgo, Chair of D-II Management Council.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bob Maxwell on May 28, 2009, 12:03:32 PM
QuoteTHis seems like an easy decision in my book with this school+ these d1 athletes don't get the d3 concept:

No the student athletes don't get it... but from a D-I school like Centenary I can understand that with all the MLB, NBA and NFL players they turn out annually. 

Going to D-III would be "folding the tent"?  What is this guy talking about?  I won't lump the administration in with this lunk head as I think that the administration knows what D-III is all about and would work within that environment... that is part of the reason they are considering it.  It's most likely just the student athletes who think they are superior that don't get it?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on May 28, 2009, 12:50:34 PM
I understand the defensiveness that many of us feel after seeing that Centenary video. We're D3's true believers, and we know better than to think that D3 is some sort of glorified intramurals that represents a dead end filled with semi-athletic wannabes. But I don't think that we should be so harsh as to call Centenary's disillusioned current athletes "lunkheads", or anything like that.

Put yourself in their shoes. They earned athletic scholarships, and for the vast majority of high school athletes in America an athletic scholarship is the Holy Grail. Their attitude towards D1 athletics is no different than that of probably 95-98% of all fans of college sports in this country. D1 is the apex, the ideal, and it consumes so much media, marketing, and advertising focus that every other level of college sports is something less than an afterthought. Thus, when that Centenary athlete speaks of the school's possible move to D3 as "folding the tent", he's not only expressing his own disappointment with losing his scholarship and his hard-earned status, he's also reflecting mainstream thought.

The corollary to that is that D3 is as close to an unknown commodity as it's possible to have in our sports-saturated society, with the exception of esoteric sports such as women's tackle football or dogsledding. It's thus prey to all sorts of misconceptions that arise from ignorance, such as the erroneous belief that D3 athletes are marginal or failed high-school athletes. Ignorance is not something that should be applauded, but it is a fact of life, and at one point or another we've all spoken out about things we don't truly understand. That doesn't make us lunkheads. It makes us human.

The cure for ignorance isn't insults. It's education. We need to get out there and inform people about what D3 really is, and about what the competitive level of our various sports is really like, rather than simply draw the wagons in a circle and react with hostility when the 98% of American athletes and sports fans who don't have a clue about D3 denigrate it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: kate on May 28, 2009, 04:19:49 PM
Gregory Sager, your post should be made mandatory reading for every D1 athlete in America!  Coming from the northeast area of the country, we're blest with multiple D3 schools, all within 100 mile radius of Easton, PA.  Most weekends from November until March unless we're at a Del Val game, we're hard pressed to decide whether to hit DeSale's or Moravian!  i CAN NOT stress enough how competitive these games are, and how much they're enjoyed by my husband & myself.  Long Live Division 3 Sports!!!  Also, while i'm on here, Long Live the Delaware Valley College Sport's programs!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on May 28, 2009, 04:26:44 PM
I understand that lacross is not a " major " sport , but as I was surfing the sports channels last night I stumbled upon the LAX draft. There were at least  three DIII players drafted in the early rounds that were mentioned but I didn't stick around long enough to see how many actually were chosen. I did a double take when the anouncer stated that the LAX teams don't discriminate against drafting players because they played DIII... So there is hope for the "glorified intramural " players after all... ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 28, 2009, 04:41:28 PM
How many scholarship equivalents do male lacrosse programs receive in D-I?

The strong student-athlete might get a very competitive merit-based financial aid package to a D-III vs a less-desirable aid package, including the "athletic scholarship" for a D-I.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on May 28, 2009, 08:24:48 PM
Ralph
   
I would have to believe that on the east coast that lacrosse gets it share of scholorships. But I have no data on how many per school. And as big as the sport has become locally your point is well taken.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sac on May 28, 2009, 08:38:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on May 28, 2009, 04:41:28 PM
How many scholarship equivalents do male lacrosse programs receive in D-I?

The strong student-athlete might get a very competitive merit-based financial aid package to a D-III vs a less-desirable aid package, including the "athletic scholarship" for a D-I.

I don't know if this is old information........

The NCAA allows each division 1 lacrosse program 12.69 scholarships for men and 12 for women. In division 2 there are 10.8 scholarships for men and 9.9 for women.

There are 54 division 1 and 30 division 2 colleges that offer lacrosse scholarships for men. That's a total of 1,009.26. There are 77 division 1 colleges and 29 division 2 colleges that offer scholarships for women, a total of 1,211

These scholarships can be given out partially.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 02, 2009, 06:10:29 PM
Applicants to D-II (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+ii/canadian+institution+among+division+ii+membership+applicants_06_02_09_ncaa_news)

Quote
...
Applicants for the 2009-10 class of membership candidates also include six institutions from Ohio (Cedarville, Malone, Mount Vernon Nazarene, Notre Dame College, Ursuline and Walsh). Two institutions from the Dakotas (Minot State from North Dakota and University of Sioux Falls from South Dakota) also applied.

The Division II Membership Committee will review applications during its July 7-9 meeting in Indianapolis. Successful applicants will enter a two-year candidacy period and must complete at least one provisional year before achieving active status.

Following are the applicants for the 2009-10 class:

Academy of Art University (San Francisco, California)

California State University, San Marcos (San Marcos, California)

Cedarville University (Cedarville, Ohio)

Malone University (Canton, Ohio)

McKendree University (Lebanon, Illinois)

Minot State University (Minot, North Dakota)

Monroe College (New York, New York)

Mount Vernon Nazarene University (Mount Vernon, Ohio)

Notre Dame College (Cleveland, Ohio)

Simon Fraser University (Burnaby, British Columbia)

University of Sioux Falls (Sioux Falls, South Dakota)

Ursuline College (Pepper Pike, Ohio)

Walsh University (North Canton, Ohio)

William Jewel College (Liberty, Missouri)

Young Harris College (Young Harris, Georgia)

The NAIA just lost a huge chunk of Ohio!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on June 02, 2009, 06:19:03 PM
I noticed Simon Fraser on the list - would they be the first Canadian school in the NCAA?

If so, can we expect the NACAA (North American in stead of National)? ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on June 02, 2009, 06:28:42 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 02, 2009, 06:19:03 PM
I noticed Simon Fraser on the list - would they be the first Canadian school in the NCAA?

If so, can we expect the NACAA (North American in stead of National)? ;)

Yes, they would be the first Canadian school to join the association. Division II is only taking 10 members so there is no guarantee Simon Fraser is getting in, although the Great Northwest Athletic Conference comissioner would like to see Simon Fraser join the Division II and probably his conference. (They would fit right in the gap between the Pacific Northwest and the Alaska schools.)

I don't think the NCAA will change. The NBA didn't change when they added Toronto and Vancouver nor did the American League or National League when they allowed Canadian teams. The NHL has always had Canadian teams and has continued to use the word "National."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 02, 2009, 07:08:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 02, 2009, 06:19:03 PM
I noticed Simon Fraser on the list - would they be the first Canadian school in the NCAA?

If so, can we expect the NACAA (North American in stead of National)? ;)
Yes, that was actually the headline on that story.  It thought the Simon Fraser angle was the sizzle and the meat was the NAIA schools (including Cal State San Marcos, Sioux Falls, Minot State ND, McKendree and William Jewell).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on June 02, 2009, 07:14:31 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 02, 2009, 07:08:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 02, 2009, 06:19:03 PM
I noticed Simon Fraser on the list - would they be the first Canadian school in the NCAA?

If so, can we expect the NACAA (North American in stead of National)? ;)
Yes, that was actually the headline on that story.  It thought the Simon Fraser angle was the sizzle and the meat was the NAIA schools (including Cal State San Marcos, Sioux Falls, Minot State ND, McKendree and William Jewell).

My monitor is not the greatest - I didn't realize your opening on the earlier post was a link to the article until your last post. :-[
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 02, 2009, 07:52:04 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 02, 2009, 07:14:31 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 02, 2009, 07:08:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 02, 2009, 06:19:03 PM
I noticed Simon Fraser on the list - would they be the first Canadian school in the NCAA?

If so, can we expect the NACAA (North American in stead of National)? ;)
Yes, that was actually the headline on that story.  It thought the Simon Fraser angle was the sizzle and the meat was the NAIA schools (including Cal State San Marcos, Sioux Falls, Minot State ND, McKendree and William Jewell).

My monitor is not the greatest - I didn't realize your opening on the earlier post was a link to the article until your last post. :-[
Yeah, sorry for the inconvenience.   :-\

I usually try to underline those words that are actually links.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: HSCTiger74 on June 03, 2009, 12:01:00 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 02, 2009, 07:08:58 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 02, 2009, 06:19:03 PM
I noticed Simon Fraser on the list - would they be the first Canadian school in the NCAA?

If so, can we expect the NACAA (North American in stead of National)? ;)
Yes, that was actually the headline on that story.  It thought the Simon Fraser angle was the sizzle and the meat was the NAIA schools (including Cal State San Marcos, Sioux Falls, Minot State ND, McKendree and William Jewell).

Actually, Simon Fraser is also currently an NAIA member in many of their intercollegiate sports. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on June 03, 2009, 10:25:58 PM
These two articles could be related:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20090603/SPORTS02/906030350/1001/SPORTS


http://news.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1175836


Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 10, 2009, 06:09:19 PM
About the SCAC, in a lacrosse blog, no less...  ;)

http://www.laxmagazine.com/blogs/coyne/060809_scac


Pull quote
Quote
Depending on who you listen to, the conference president's summer meeting, which is scheduled for June 11 in Atlanta according to the league calendar, could result in one of three results for the burgeoning men's (and soon to be women's) lacrosse league.

1. Status quo with the conference holding its current form;

2. A transition to a divisional structure, with the conference broken into East and West entities in order to mitigate rising travel coast for a league that stretches from Georgia to Colorado;

3. The league collapses under the weight of its travel burdens, its member institutions splintering into newly formed conferences or joining existing leagues, dooming the eight lacrosse programs to independent status for the foreseeable future.

Thankfully, the second option appears to be the likely choice for the presidents.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ronk on June 15, 2009, 01:05:41 AM
Basic question of how DIII basketball recruiting works in general:

Do the prospects submit financial aid forms and the schools meet up to 100% of the prospects' needs up to the limit of the school's resources for aid?
Can the school priortize its resources so that,for example, 50% goes to #1 prospect, 30% to #2, 20% to #3, etc.?

What are the general guidelines and what are the discretionary areas? 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on June 15, 2009, 01:19:33 AM
Quote from: ronk on June 15, 2009, 01:05:41 AM
Basic question of how DIII basketball recruiting works in general:

Do the prospects submit financial aid forms and the schools meet up to 100% of the prospects' needs up to the limit of the school's resources for aid?
Can the school priortize its resources so that,for example, 50% goes to #1 prospect, 30% to #2, 20% to #3, etc.?

What are the general guidelines and what are the discretionary areas? 

I won't guarantee actual practice, but the d3 philosophy is that athletic ability can take NO account in scholarship decisions.  And they do (at least theoretically) monitor that student athletes get no more (or less) aid than students in general.  I believe the cut-off for compliance is +/- 4% between athletes and general students; whether or not that is monitored overall or sport-by-sport I don't know.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on June 15, 2009, 01:51:31 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on June 15, 2009, 01:19:33 AM
Quote from: ronk on June 15, 2009, 01:05:41 AM
Basic question of how DIII basketball recruiting works in general:

Do the prospects submit financial aid forms and the schools meet up to 100% of the prospects' needs up to the limit of the school's resources for aid?
Can the school priortize its resources so that,for example, 50% goes to #1 prospect, 30% to #2, 20% to #3, etc.?

What are the general guidelines and what are the discretionary areas? 

I won't guarantee actual practice, but the d3 philosophy is that athletic ability can take NO account in scholarship decisions.  And they do (at least theoretically) monitor that student athletes get no more (or less) aid than students in general.  I believe the cut-off for compliance is +/- 4% between athletes and general students; whether or not that is monitored overall or sport-by-sport I don't know.

I got to thinking about that last phrase; either way has potential problems.

If overall athletes v. other students, a school could award de facto athletic scholarships in sports they emphasize, and mask it by 'cheating' athletes in other sports.  On the other hand, with sport-by-sport analysis, some rosters are so small that they may be way out of line for perfectly legitimate reasons.

I would hope they assess compliance both ways, with allowance given for legitimate variation in individual sports.  Anyone know how the assessment is actually done?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ronk on June 15, 2009, 09:29:48 PM
  So, if a prospect is recruited by all 8 UAA schools, for example, he couldn't be offered more than 4% above the non-athletes at the same school, but could get more at a different UAA school, if that school offered its nonathletes more,also. The differentator is how each school treats all its applicants, financial aid-wise. Otherwise, the prospect chooses for non-financial reasons among the UAA schools-bball program,coaching,academics,etc. Am I reading your  response correctly?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on June 15, 2009, 10:01:16 PM
Quote from: ronk on June 15, 2009, 09:29:48 PM
  So, if a prospect is recruited by all 8 UAA schools, for example, he couldn't be offered more than 4% above the non-athletes at the same school, but could get more at a different UAA school, if that school offered its nonathletes more,also. The differentator is how each school treats all its applicants, financial aid-wise. Otherwise, the prospect chooses for non-financial reasons among the UAA schools-bball program,coaching,academics,etc. Am I reading your  response correctly?

By this point I'm beginning to go on a lot of what I assume, rather than what I know!  (I hope someone more in the know will jump in. ;))  I AM sure that the rules don't apply to individual athletes (at least as far as a school can justify the award) - there are many d3 athletes on 100% scholarship (deservedly so, due to academic prowess or need).  The 4% (?) rule is an average of athletes vs. non-athletes.  (So far as I know, there is no rule that a school, endowment permitting, couldn't give everyone a better deal than its competitors; just no favoritism for athletes.)

The question I raised was whether the assessment is athletes overall vs. non-athletes, or sport-by-sport athletes vs. non-athletes.  If the former, a school could 'game' the system by favoring certain sports at the expense of others.  (COULD Mount Union 'buy' football titles this way?  I hasten to add I do NOT believe they do, but COULD a rogue school do this?)  If the latter, some athletes in small roster sports might suffer in order to meet compliance (what if a basketball team has 3-4 players who quite deservedly have 100% scholarships due to academics or need?  Must the others get stiffed?)

Could someone who knows the actual NCAA procedures please jump in here! :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 20, 2009, 06:26:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 20, 2009, 08:44:51 PM
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

:)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: joehakes on June 21, 2009, 07:12:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 21, 2009, 08:09:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 21, 2009, 08:19:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 21, 2009, 02:54:39 PM
6 of 8 is the same ratio as Division III overall.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Tennessee_papa on June 21, 2009, 07:26:33 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 21, 2009, 07:57:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 01, 2009, 03:20:57 PM
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.

...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 02, 2009, 10:30:26 PM
Former D-III member Chowan (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+ii/chowan+first+nonhbcu+to+join+the+ciaa++_07-02-09+ncaa+news) joins the CIAA.

Lincoln PA also joined the CIAA when it reclassified to D-II.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 02, 2009, 10:41:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on July 08, 2009, 11:47:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on July 09, 2009, 10:09:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on July 09, 2009, 10:55:05 AM
If Tostitos or AT&T is ready to hand out $100 million to a couple of our member schools to have them play a bowl game, then I'm all for it.  Until then, we're all just fine with our playoff system, thank you.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on July 09, 2009, 02:11:33 PM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on July 09, 2009, 10:09:15 AM
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.

Here's the link to the interview
http://sports.espn.go.com/stations/player?id=4315901
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 11, 2009, 01:26:20 PM
February 20, 2009 update of the Exploratory Provisional Reclassifying List   (Thanks pabegg RIP)

Quote from: pabegg on August 11, 2008, 09:38:21 AM
The NCAA has just posted the latest list of reclassifying institutions:

Click here (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/resources/file/ebbc31098a73078/2008-09%20Provisional%2C%20Reclass%20%26%20Exploratory%20Chart.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&attachment=true)

Here's my summary of the changes:


Active with restrictions (fifth year member of provisional program)
Mount Mary College

Fourth year
Mitchell College
Presentation College


Recieved waiver- now in year 4

SUNY-Morrisville

Third year (games against them now count for ranking purposes)
Lancaster Bible College
Lyndon State College
Saint Vincent College
La Sierra University (second year spent at "year 3")
North Central University (third year spent at "year 3")

Second year
Geneva College
Penn State Harrisburg
Franciscan University of Steubenville
St. Joseph's College, New York
Birmingham Southern College (the only reclassifying school on the list)



First year
University of Cincinnati Clermont College  Gone from Feb 2009 list
State University of New York at Cobleskill

Spalding University (second year spent at "year 1")

Starting next year
Doane College (was supposed to have started this year)
Berry College
Concordia University NE
Covenant College
Hastings College
Penn State Abington
William Jewell  Declared for D-II



Modified for formatting -- Thanks for the link, pabegg.
Search found at www.ncaa.org using these terms

"current exploratory provisional reclassifying div iii"



The Division III Presidents Council meets on August 6th.  We should see the newest list shortly thereafter.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 11, 2009, 03:42:14 PM
D-II announces Membership Committee actions. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+ii/dii+membership+committee+oks+lake+erie+as+active+member_07_10_09_ncaa_news)


Quote...
The Division II membership process includes a two-year candidacy period and at least one provisional year before institutions are granted active membership.
...

Lake Erie to active status (full membership).

CSU-East Bay and Maryville MO from year #1 to year #2.

Lincoln PA  from provisional to year #1.


Modified for formatting.  Ralph
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 18, 2009, 10:02:39 AM
Seven new legislative proposals under consideration (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/diii+membership+submits+seven+legislative+proposals_07_17_09_ncaa_news)

Pull quotes...

QuotePermit a daily, one-hour "walkthrough" session in football during the preseason five-day acclimatization period. The proposal by the American Southwest Conference and Empire 8 would prohibit wearing protective equipment (such as a helmet or shoulder pads) , use of football equipment (such as a football or blocking sled) or conditioning activities during the period, which is intended only for instruction. The proposal also specifies that student-athletes must be provided at least three hours of continuous recovery time between the end of an on-field practice session and the start of the walkthrough session.


QuotePermit an institution to send electronically transmitted correspondence via such media as instant messaging, text messaging and social-networking sites, provided the information transmitted is similar to that available to a general audience via the institution's Web site and that a prospective student-athlete "initiates, accepts and 'opts-in'" to receive the information. The Centennial Conference proposal is very similar to a recommendation  from the Division III Interpretations and Legislation Committee that will be considered next week by the Division III Management Council.

Next, a big one for baseball and softball

QuoteDecrease the maximum number of baseball and softball contests from 40 to 36 and decrease the number of games required to meet sports-sponsorship requirements from 25 to 20. The North Atlantic Conference says it is seeking to bring the number of contests in those sports in line with other spring team sports while reducing pressure due to weather conditions to schedule spring trips.

Or...
QuoteIn another option proposed by the North Atlantic Conference, decrease only the number of baseball and softball games required to meet sports-sponsorship requirements from 25 to 20.

(This may be a "cold-weather' proposal.  So many games needed for so few weather friendly dates.)

Please remember that this is only step #1 for each of these proposals...

QuoteThe Division III Management Council will be the first governance-structure body to review the proposals, during its meeting beginning Monday in Denver. The Council is expected only to assign each proposal to an appropriate committee for review and comment; it typically takes no position on membership-sponsored proposals until its October meeting.

The final vote will occur in January 2010, and implemented at a date TBD.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 22, 2009, 04:14:56 PM
FYI

Patriot League discusses football scholarships (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+i/patriot+league+discusses+football+scholarships_07_21_09_ncaa_news)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 27, 2009, 02:46:46 PM
Post from the GSAC Men's Hoops board...

Quote
Quote from: bballlover on July 27, 2009, 02:38:57 PM
Covenant schedule shows games against every GSAC member, a good sign..http://athletics.covenant.edu/mbasketball/schedule

+1 Karma

Looks like that we shall see Covenant entering into the provisional class of D-III this season.

Let's look for the announcement from the NCAA next month.

It looks like Covenant may be declaring for D-III to enter in this year's provisional class for 2013-14.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 31, 2009, 06:36:57 PM
http://www.covenant.edu/news/07.27.09

http://www.berry.edu/pr/news/pressdetail.asp?ID=775

Covenant, Berry GA and PSU-Abingdon are the three provisionals for this fall.

They can be full members in 2013.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 06, 2009, 10:14:00 AM
Good proposals coming from the Men's Golf Championship Committee!

Increasing the number of bids from 1:7.5 to 1:7.  This would increase the number of Pool C bids avaiable.  Football and basketball fans may think that Pool C is tight in their sports.  It is really tight in Golf -- 2 Pool C bids versus 27 Pool A conferences, 7 Pool B bids and 278 eligible programs.

Cutting the field to 15 teams and 6 individuals after the second round.  This really helps with weather contingencies.

Allowing a second coach/driver to attend the championship.

Please read the article (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/diii+golf+committee+explores+cut+adjustment_08_06_09_ncaa_news) to get the details!


Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 07, 2009, 11:01:34 PM
New members..

SUNY-Morrisville

http://newscenter.morrisville.edu/article.aspx?id=7002


QuoteMorrisville State will compete as an active member of the North Eastern Athletic Conference (NEAC) in 2009-10 with the exception of football, men's ice hockey and field hockey. Football competes in the New Jersey Athletic Conference (NJAC).

In addition, with full NCAA accreditation, Morrisville State is eligible to seek affiliate membership with the State University of New York Athletic Conference (SUNYAC) for both field hockey and men's ice hockey.


No word yet on the Presentation SD, Mitchell CT or Mount Mary WI websites if they were approved for active membership.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on August 10, 2009, 12:45:19 PM
All four are now active members. Here's (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/four+schools+achieve+active+diii+membership+for+2009-10_08_10_09_ncaa_news) the link to the article from the NCAA.
Also has the updates on the other levels of the provisional pipeline.



Modified for formatting-- Thanks, Ralph
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 10, 2009, 08:23:44 PM
Excerpted from the NCAA's press release today (posted by Hickory Cornhusker above).
New members (with location and conference affiliation):

Mitchell College (New London, Connecticut; New England Collegiate Conference).
State University of New York at Morrisville (Morrisville, New York; North Eastern Athletic Conference).
Mount Mary College (Milwaukee, Wisconsin; independent).
Presentation College (Aberdeen, South Dakota; Upper Midwest Athletic Conference).

Year #4

Lancaster Bible College (Lancaster, Pennsylvania; independent).
Lyndon State College (Lyndonville, Vermont; North Atlantic Conference).
North Central University (Minneapolis, Minnesota; independent).
Penn State Harrisburg (Middletown, Pennsylvania; North Eastern Athletic Conference). The institution received approval to advance from the second to the fourth year of provisional membership.
Saint Vincent College (Latrobe, Pennsylvania; Presidents' Athletic Conference).


Year #3

Franciscan University of Steubenville (Steubenville, Ohio; Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference).
Geneva College (Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania; Presidents' Athletic Conference).
St. Joseph's College (Brooklyn, New York; independent).

Year #2

Spalding University (Louisville, Kentucky; St. Louis Intercollegiate Athletic Conference).
State University of New York at Cobleskill (Cobleskill, New York; North Eastern Athletic Conference).


Year #1

Berry College (Mount Berry, Georgia; independent).
Covenant College (Lookout Mountain, Georgia; independent).
Penn State Abington (Abington, Pennsylvania; North Eastern Athletic Conference).



The 14th institution is La Sierra University, which repeated the third year of provisional membership in 2008-09 and currently is under review by the Division III Membership Committee.



In addition, one institution is entering the third year of reclassifying membership. Birmingham-Southern College, reclassifying from Division I, is affiliated with the Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference and is on track for active membership in 2011-12.

Division III received no applications for 2009-10 exploratory membership.

September 1 also is the date when two single-sport conferences will become active members. They are the Eastern Collegiate Football Conference and Midwest Lacrosse Conference. Both were approved earlier this year for active membership.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on August 10, 2009, 10:17:58 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 10, 2009, 08:23:44 PM
Excerpted from the NCAA's press release today (posted by Hickory Cornhusker above).
New members (with location and conference affiliation):

Mitchell College (New London, Connecticut; New England Collegiate Conference).
State University of New York at Morrisville (Morrisville, New York; North Eastern Athletic Conference).
Mount Mary College (Milwaukee, Wisconsin; independent).
Presentation College (Aberdeen, South Dakota; Upper Midwest Athletic Conference).

Year #4

Lancaster Bible College (Lancaster, Pennsylvania; independent).
Lyndon State College (Lyndonville, Vermont; North Atlantic Conference).
North Central University (Minneapolis, Minnesota; independent).
Penn State Harrisburg (Middletown, Pennsylvania; North Eastern Athletic Conference). The institution received approval to advance from the second to the fourth year of provisional membership.
Saint Vincent College (Latrobe, Pennsylvania; Presidents' Athletic Conference).


Year #3

Franciscan University of Steubenville (Steubenville, Ohio; Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference).
Geneva College (Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania; Presidents' Athletic Conference).
St. Joseph's College (Brooklyn, New York; independent).

Year #2

Spalding University (Louisville, Kentucky; St. Louis Intercollegiate Athletic Conference).
State University of New York at Cobleskill (Cobleskill, New York; North Eastern Athletic Conference).


Year #1

Berry College (Mount Berry, Georgia; independent).
Covenant College (Lookout Mountain, Georgia; independent).
Penn State Abington (Abington, Pennsylvania; North Eastern Athletic Conference).



The 14th institution is La Sierra University, which repeated the third year of provisional membership in 2008-09 and currently is under review by the Division III Membership Committee.



In addition, one institution is entering the third year of reclassifying membership. Birmingham-Southern College, reclassifying from Division I, is affiliated with the Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference and is on track for active membership in 2011-12.

Division III received no applications for 2009-10 exploratory membership.

September 1 also is the date when two single-sport conferences will become active members. They are the Eastern Collegiate Football Conference and Midwest Lacrosse Conference. Both were approved earlier this year for active membership.

For some reason I just like Franciscan University of Stuebenville, that is just a great name.

I didn't think anything named Spalding could exist in Louisville.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 20, 2009, 07:19:30 PM
Women's Golf...

Lots of information in the article.  Forgive me for pasting almost the entire article, but it does cover many of the issues that Women's Golf is facing as D-III tries to grow the sport.  IMHO, it has helped the conferences that are trying to grow the sport without cutting back on the requirements of the institution to offer a creditable program.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/championships+panel+grants+aq+relief+to+womens+golf_08_20_09_ncaa_news

QuoteChampionships panel grants AQ relief to women's golf

...


Aug 20, 2009 8:57:02 AM

The NCAA News


The Division III Championships Committee has approved a two-year waiver request from the Division III Women's Golf Committee that relaxes automatic-qualification requirements conferences need to meet in that sport.

The action taken during an August 18 conference call allows institutions to count contests in which only four golfers participate (rather than the standard five) for postseason-selection purposes. That in turn relieves conferences that have been struggling to meet AQ standards.

In essence, the waiver extends what has been a three-year grace period for the AQ model in women's golf through the 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic years.

The issue became nettlesome as a number of Division III women's golf programs scrambled to compete in at least six tournaments with five golfers to qualify for postseason selection. A failure by an institution to meet that requirement can affect whether a conference would have seven members eligible for the championships under AQ requirements. Of the 11 conferences that were granted automatic qualification last year, six would not be renewed if the five-person roster were required this year.

The golf committee asked the Championships Committee for the waiver not only to provide immediate relief but also as the best option to grow the game. The sport committee reasoned that programs would still be encouraged to reach a five-woman roster for competitive reasons (in golf, teams play five but count only the top four scores), but the waiver would assist teams or conferences that are making an effort but currently struggling to meet the standards.

In granting the waiver, the Championships Committee made it clear that it was intended as temporary relief rather than a permanent solution.

The group also emphasized that the waiver did not mean a retreat from current requirements for counting women's golf toward Division III's sports-sponsorship requirements. Under the relaxed standards, there will be teams that can help their conferences meet AQ requirements in the sport but cannot count women's golf toward meeting sport-sponsorship requirements for Division III membership, which still require five student-athletes to participate in at least six competitions.

The Championships Committee talked briefly about whether the five-person roster requirement is appropriate for golf as a sport-sponsorship standard but noted that would be an issue for the Division III Membership Committee to decide.

In a related action, the committee agreed that the bracket size for the 2010 and 2011 Division III Women's Golf Championships will be calculated from the number of teams that had at least four participants complete at least one contest or 18-hole round of golf during 2008-09. As a result, the bracket would include 19 teams, based on a ratio of one team for every 7.5 schools meeting that standard.

...


Once again, the conference AQ process is helping to build opportunities for student-athletes in D-III.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 20, 2009, 09:01:31 PM
Women's Golf and Lacrosse coming to the SCIAC.

http://www.oxyathletics.com/othernews/2007-08/042608wsports_lax_golf
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 20, 2009, 09:21:46 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on August 20, 2009, 09:01:31 PM
Women's Golf and Lacrosse coming to the SCIAC.

http://www.oxyathletics.com/othernews/2007-08/042608wsports_lax_golf

Concerning SCIAC Women's Lacrosse...

If the SCIAC sponsors Women's Lacrosse with five schools, the conference could add two affiliates and earn the Pool A bid.

Might the conference invite some affiliates for the sake of a Pool A bid?

Here is the 2009  Handbook listing West Region Pool B Womens' Programs

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/lacrosse/2009/3_wlacrosse_handbook.pdf

Add Occidental College as a fifth SCIAC...

QuotePool B

Adrian College

Claremont McKenna-Harvey Mudd-Scripps Colleges

Colorado College  SCAC

University of Dallas   West Region independent

Fontbonne University

Linfield College  -- Northwest Conference

College of Mount St. Joseph

Pacific University (Oregon)  -- Northwest Conference

Pomona-Pitzer Colleges

University of Puget Sound -- Northwest Conference
   
University of Redlands

Saint Vincent College

University of the South -- SCAC

Trine University

Whittier College
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 20, 2009, 09:47:37 PM
I talked to the outgoing president during my class reunion in June.  I got the impression that this is motivated by Title IX.  I doubt the budget would allow travel to Colorado or Dallas for a first year program.  If they could get Chapman and Menlo to start programs, it might work, but getting automatic bids is not what usually motivates the SCIAC. 

I suspect more schools will be adding this sport because it is becoming more and more popular at the HS level.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 20, 2009, 10:09:04 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on August 20, 2009, 09:47:37 PM
I talked to the outgoing president during my class reunion in June.  I got the impression that this is motivated by Title IX.  I doubt the budget would allow travel to Colorado or Dallas for a first year program.  If they could get Chapman and Menlo to start programs, it might work, but getting automatic bids is not what usually motivates the SCIAC.  

I suspect more schools will be adding this sport because it is becoming more and more popular at the HS level.
I was thinking of some affiliation arrangement with the NWC.  The teams need to fill the schedule some way and mini-tournaments with NWC schools might do that.

QuoteHere are the 2009 Redlands and the 2009 Whittier Schedules

Redlands
      
Feb. 24       Whittier       4:00 PM      W, 18-11      Boxscore  Recap
      
Mar. 4    at Pomona-Pitzer    7:00 PM    W, 16-15    Boxscore  Recap
      
Mar. 6    Colorado Col.    7:00 PM    L, 22-14    Boxscore  Recap
      
Mar. 11    Claremont-M-S    7:00 PM    L, 14-6    Boxscore  Recap
      
Mar. 17    Puget Sound    2:00 PM    L, 15-11    Boxscore  Recap
   Moved from 3 p.m.    
Mar. 22    Linfield    12:00 PM    W, 14-11    Boxscore  Recap
      
Mar. 24    Birmingham Southern    7:00 PM    W, 14-11    Boxscore  Recap
      
Mar. 26    Oberlin    7:00 PM    W, 21-13    Boxscore  Recap
      
Mar. 27    Potsdam St.    12:00 PM    L, 18-9    Boxscore  Recap
      
Apr. 8    Pomona-Pitzer    7:00 PM    W, 21-11    Boxscore  Recap  Photos
      
Apr. 22    at Williams    1:30 PM    L, 16-0    Boxscore  Recap
      
Apr. 23    at MIT    4:00 PM    L, 17-11    Boxscore  Recap
      
Apr. 27    at Whittier    7:00 PM    L, 14-12    Boxscore  Recap
      
Apr. 30    at Claremont-M-S    3:30 PM    L, 19-8    Boxscore

Whittier
Overall Record: 8-6 Conference Record: 0-0
Date    Opponent    Result    Time    Links
02/04/09    Occidental    W, 18-3    Final    
   Scrimmage    
02/24/09    at Redlands    L, 18-11    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
02/25/09    at Pomona-Pitzer    W, 12-11    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
03/02/09    at Claremont-M-S    L, 21-6    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
03/07/09    Colorado Col.    L, 13-3    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
03/10/09    Dallas    W, 16-4    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
03/13/09    Haverford    L, 11-8    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
03/15/09    Puget Sound    L, 14-13    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
03/20/09    Linfield    W, 15-7    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
03/29/09    at Puget Sound @ Forest Grove, Ore.    W, 16-13    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
03/30/09    at Linfield    W, 20-12    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
03/31/09    at Pacific (Ore.)    W, 15-5    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
04/13/09    Claremont-M-S    L, 24-14    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
04/15/09    Pomona-Pitzer    W, 20-9    Final    Boxscore  Recap
      
04/27/09    Redlands    W, 14-12    Final - OT    Boxscore  Recap

Thanks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 20, 2009, 10:22:53 PM
That might work.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on August 24, 2009, 02:36:15 PM
DIII members perceive integration of athletics into education

Sounds like large majority of D3 schools are getting it right!


Please click here for article (http://ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/diii+members+perceive+integration+of+athletics+into+education_08_24_09_ncaa_news)




Edited for formatting... Thanks for the link.  Ralph
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 27, 2009, 02:05:07 AM
The NCAA carried this story of affiliation to gain Pool A status in Men's Golf.

Three Landmark golf programs link up with Empire 8 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/three+landmark+golf+programs+link+up+with+empire+8_08_25_09_ncaa_news)

Quote... Landmark members Moravian, Scranton and Susquehanna will first compete alongside the five Empire 8 schools sponsoring the sport in a championship tournament next month and again in April 2010.

The new associate members join Elmira, Nazareth, St. John Fisher (which finished third at the 2008 Division III Men's Golf Championships led by individual medalist Scott Harris Jr.), Stevens Institute of Technology and Utica in competing for Empire 8 honors.    ...

Fellow Landmark member Merchant Marine affiliated with the Liberty League in 2009-10 to give 7 members.  The LL should earn the Golf AQ in 2011-12.

A July 1st press release from the New England Collegiate Conference announced the affiliation of Babson (NEWMAC) with the NECC.

Quote...They [Babson] will join NECC members Becker College, Daniel Webster College, Elms College, Mitchell College and Newbury College, along with fellow NEWMAC member Springfield College who is also an associate member in men's golf. ...

That still leaves NEWMAC member MIT as an independent (Pool B) school sponsoring golf.

In Men's Golf Central Region, UMAC schools that sponsor golf include Bethany Lutheran, Crown, Martin Luther, UMinn-Morris, Northwestern and Presentation, plus 4th-year provisional (and affiliate member) North Central MN.  That gives 7 schools.  If the UMAC wanted to invite Finlandia to affiliate in Men's Golf beginning with the 2009-10 school year, then the UMAC could have an AQ by the 2012 tourney. Otherwise, when North Central becomes a full member of D-III, the UMAC should get its Pool A bid two years later.

The 2009 tourney had 27 Pool A bids, 7 Pool B bids and 2 Pool C bids.  With 8 schools moving from Pool B to Pool A under the Empire 8 banner, 7 schools moving to Pool A in the Liberty League, 7 schools moving to Pool A under the NECC banner and the potential for 7 more schools to move to Pool A in the UMAC, that would change the Men's Golf allocation to 31 Pool A's 3 Pool B's and 2 Pool C bids.

Along those lines, GSAC members Huntingdon, LaGrange and Piedmont are in Pool B, but the USA South is in danger of losing Shenandoah, which would put the USA South Pool A bid in jeopardy.  (GSAC/USA South merger discussions were recently discontinued.)

We may see more affiliations in Men's Golf to gain access to Pool A.

The Capital AC has these 5 schools sponsoring Men's Golf:  Hood, Marymount, Stevenson, Wesley and York PA.

The Commonwealth Coast Conference has 6 schools that sponsor men's golf:  Anna Marie, Endicott, New England, Nichols, Wentworth Tech and Western New England.  (Men's golf is not a sponsored sport by the CCC.)

The MASCAC has 4 schools that sponsor men's golf:  Mass College of the Liberal Arts, Salem State, Westfield and Worcester State.

UAA schools (5) that sponsor golf include Brandeis, Carnegie-Mellon, Emory, NYU and Rochester.

That leaves the other (7) independents (2008-09 Handbook):

Northeast Region:  UMaine-Presque Isle, SUNY-Potsdam.

Mid-Atlantic Region:  SUNY-Oswego.  (Rutgers-Camden has affiliated with the NEAC.)

Central Region: Neb. Wesleyan, UW-Eau Claire and UW-Stout

Southeast and Great Lakes Regions:  (See GSAC, UAA  and Capital AC.)

West Region: Chapman. (University of Dallas is in an affiliation arrangement with the NEAC.))


New Jersey City and William Paterson (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/two+new+jersey+schools+add+mens+golf_08_14_09_ncaa_news) join Rutgers-Camden in sponsoring men's golf.

2009 Men's Golf Handbook (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/golf/2009/3_mgolf_handbook.pdf)

Pool B is going away...




Disclaimer:  The Handbook does not break down membership by conference, so I may be missing some unusual affiliations.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on August 29, 2009, 03:10:36 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on August 20, 2009, 09:47:37 PM
I talked to the outgoing president during my class reunion in June.  I got the impression that this is motivated by Title IX.  I doubt the budget would allow travel to Colorado or Dallas for a first year program.  If they could get Chapman and Menlo to start programs, it might work, but getting automatic bids is not what usually motivates the SCIAC. 

I suspect more schools will be adding this sport because it is becoming more and more popular at the HS level.

Up here in MN, there are 51 girls and 48 boys lacrosse teams, and some players are getting D-1 scholarships now. Need something to do after hockey season!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on September 02, 2009, 12:07:21 PM
American Southwest Conference takes stand on sportsmanship.

http://www.ascsports.org/News/gen/2009/9/1/ASC_NOTOLERANCE0910.asp?path=gen
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 04, 2009, 08:21:53 PM
Rosemont (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/newly+coed+rosemont+unveils+ravens+identity_09_03_09_ncaa_news) goes co-ed and changes its nickname, and will retire the Rosemont school mascot, Rosie the Rosemonster.

Rosemont is a member of the CSAC and will add men's soccer, Basketball and Tennis this season.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on September 09, 2009, 02:44:15 PM
Ferrum set to begin Men's LaCrosse program

http://www.ferrumpanthers.com/news/2009/9/2/GEN_0902094519.aspx
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 10, 2009, 02:24:12 PM
Wooster adds women's golf in 2010-11.  They are the 5th NCAC program to sponsor the sport.

The NCAC may consider having a conference championship now.

The NCAC is 2 affiliates or full members shy of earning the AQ.

Wooster Women's Golf (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/division+iii+sports+sponsorship+news)

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 11, 2009, 09:49:24 AM
Wesley football program penalized (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/division+iii+infractions+case)




Quote...During the 2006-07 academic year, the college's financial aid packaging for some freshman student-athletes was clearly distinguishable from the general pattern of financial aid packaging for all freshman aid recipients. At the time the violations occurred, the college had an unpublished financial aid appeals process. ...

Please click on the link above for more details.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 11, 2009, 09:17:21 PM
Link taken from the D3football.com "What we are reading" sidebar.

Earlham could switch leagues (http://www.pal-item.com/article/20090907/NEWS02/909070314)

Intend to compete in the HCAC  in 2010-11...

Citing economics and geography...

Pull quotes...

Quote
..."We did officially apply to be a member," said Earlham athletic director Frank Carr. "If everything would work, the intention would be we would be a member in fall of 2010."

...

Earlham's longest trip in the Heartland would be about 2 hours, 45 minutes.

"A lot of it had to do with money," Carr said. "Saving on transportation, saving on overnight trips was one of the big things. We feel like we can save maybe upwards of $70,000 to $100,000 a year with that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 16, 2009, 09:20:05 AM
Winston-Salem State seeks return to Division II (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+ii/winston-salem+state+seeks+return+to+division+ii_09_15_09_ncaa_news)

Pull quote...

Quote
...
As for Winston-Salem State's decision to seek a return to Division II, Chancellor Donald Reaves cited resources as the reason.

"In the final analysis, the resources to complete the reclassification simply were not available, currently nor prospectively, in sufficient amounts," Reaves said in the Journal story. "If there were any reasonable way to complete this transition without diverting resources from competing academic priorities, I would have recommended that we stay the course."
...

The big winner in this might be the CIAA.

Quote...
Reaves said the school is seeking a conference affiliation before 2010-11, possibly with its previous conference, the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association.

...

Real numbers on the cost to WSSU for moving to D-1 status...

http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/sep/11/wssu-trustees-vote-stop-move-division-i/


Reaction by the MEAC as it loses WSSU as North Carolina Central was joining...

http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/sep/16/wssu-decision-surprises-meac/sports/

You will see John Dell's collection of articles on the WSSU decision.  These, and the comments section on the articles, will give you a better perspective of the situation.


Addendum:  The CIAA is the conference that Chowan NC and Lincoln PA have joined in their reclassification to D-II.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 21, 2009, 07:26:41 PM
Dwindling at-large berths among DIII championships concerns (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/dwindling+at+large+berths+among+diii+championships+concerns_09_21_09_ncaa_news)

Pull quotes...
QuoteThe committee did take a formal step toward dealing with a limited number of situations in which Pool C (as the at-large component of Division III championships is known) is shrinking as more schools affiliate with conferences that have automatic qualification to championships.  [See below***]


QuoteThe men's golf committee had asked the Championships Committee to adjust the 1:7.5 access ratio for the Division III Men's Golf Championships (under which one team is selected for the event for every 7.5 schools that sponsor the sport) to 1:7.


Rather than take that step, the Championships Committee recommended that the Management Council revise administrative regulations to give the committee latitude within budget constraints to adjust the ratio for individual-team championships that award AQ to conferences to any point deemed appropriate between 1:7 and 1:7.5.


...

QuoteSuch an adjustment would have the effect of enlarging a championship's bracket size, though the Championships Committee also would have to consider whether bracket expansion could be supported within Division III's championships budget, which is determined every two years.

Next spring's men's golf championships will include 37 teams under the 1:7.5 ratio, including 27 that will qualify automatically through conferences (Pool A). Seven berths are available to teams from conferences that do not have automatic qualification or teams that are not affiliated with a conference (Pool B), while three berths will be allocated to Pool C.

To illustrate how a change in the ratio would impact bracket size, had the Championships Committee approved a 1:7 ratio for men's golf, the championship would have gained a projected three additional berths for teams selected at large – a move the golf committee advocated to improve access for quality teams that are defeated in competition for automatic qualification but would be competitive in the national championship.

There currently is a similar concern in women's golf, where the number of Pool C berths has dropped to two – the minimum that can be allocated in a Division III team championship. The Division III Women's Golf Championships field will increase from 19 to 20 teams this year to maintain that minimum Pool C allocation.

In other items,


QuoteRecommended to the Management Council an administrative regulation allowing sports committees to request permission to weight home and away games in the opponents' average winning percentage (OWP) and opponents' opponents' average winning percentage (OOWP) in primary criteria for championships ranking and selection.

Wow!  That is the old home-away feature that we had in the QOWI!   ;D

QuoteAgreed to consider, for cases in which a Division III provisional member will become a conference's seventh member for automatic-qualification purposes in a sport, whether that conference should be permitted to count the member's third and fourth provisional year toward the league's two-year waiting period to achieve AQ. The committee will consider whether to recommend changing an administrative regulation that currently requires the conference to wait two additional years after the institution achieves active membership.

I wonder if this is not an issue arising from the NECC, the UMAC, and/or the NEAC as those new conferences grow and stabilize.




Please see my post just above (#1610) in which I can project 4 more conferences earning Pool A bids as new conferences and affiliations occur.  That would give 31 A's, 3 B's, and 2 Pool C's.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on September 21, 2009, 08:18:43 PM
It would be interesting to see if home/away advantage varies significantly by sport.  I could imagine it might be fairly large in 'big'-crowd sports like football and basketball (in most areas, meaning men's bb), but (unless the 'rigors' of travel itself is a bigger factor) would seem somewhat trivial in things like swimming, tennis, or volleyball (where a pool or a court seems relatively neutral).  One 'minor' sport where I could imagine it might be huge is golf - knowing the course so well would seem a huge advantage.

Anyone know of a source for home/away winning records (without having to calculate a ton of data!) by sport?

My hunch would be that, if they re-introduce a difference by home/away, it oughta be of pretty trivial impact.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 21, 2009, 09:05:49 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on September 21, 2009, 08:18:43 PM
It would be interesting to see if home/away advantage varies significantly by sport.  I could imagine it might be fairly large in 'big'-crowd sports like football and basketball (in most areas, meaning men's bb), but (unless the 'rigors' of travel itself is a bigger factor) would seem somewhat trivial in things like swimming, tennis, or volleyball (where a pool or a court seems relatively neutral).  One 'minor' sport where I could imagine it might be huge is golf - knowing the course so well would seem a huge advantage.

Anyone know of a source for home/away winning records (without having to calculate a ton of data!) by sport?

My hunch would be that, if they re-introduce a difference by home/away, it oughta be of pretty trivial impact.
Non conference basketball games in the Shirk Center can be tough!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on September 21, 2009, 09:22:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 21, 2009, 09:05:49 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on September 21, 2009, 08:18:43 PM
It would be interesting to see if home/away advantage varies significantly by sport.  I could imagine it might be fairly large in 'big'-crowd sports like football and basketball (in most areas, meaning men's bb), but (unless the 'rigors' of travel itself is a bigger factor) would seem somewhat trivial in things like swimming, tennis, or volleyball (where a pool or a court seems relatively neutral).  One 'minor' sport where I could imagine it might be huge is golf - knowing the course so well would seem a huge advantage.

Anyone know of a source for home/away winning records (without having to calculate a ton of data!) by sport?

My hunch would be that, if they re-introduce a difference by home/away, it oughta be of pretty trivial impact.
Non conference basketball games in the Shirk Center can be tough!

I sure hope so!

IF crowd noise really affects players, we have an additional weapon - it is not altogether rare for Titan fans to out-number home fans at away games! ;)  [Though everyone jokes about the 'blue-hairs' among the Titan travelers, so not sure how loud they are!]

Any ideas on actual stats about home/away records?  (It would also vary by area, of course.  While wrestling mats hardly vary, I'd imagine there might be a home advantage in Iowa; Texas (and Iowa?) might be the only places where home court is an advantage in women's bball due to crowd noise.

Other than crowd support and/or travel itself, can you think of any sport where familiarity itself would be a big factor?  Golf, of course; cross-country?  Anything else?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on September 22, 2009, 01:26:58 AM
The edge in home games mean more than just the large crowds at certain sports. It's knowing the environment, the lighting, the sounds, the field (court, gym, etc.) and also not having to travel.

Even though a pool may be technically the same, everything else surrounding the pool is different, so that could affect times.

And I've seen some intimidating volleyball crowds at high school matches, so there's something to that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on September 22, 2009, 01:46:56 AM
Agreed on all points.

I'm wondering if there is some quantification out there?

Golf would clearly have a home advantage.  Perhaps cross country.  Some gyms certainly would give an advantage for basketball (the background of the basket, the lighting) - don't know if that would carry over to other sports.

I wonder if there is any research trying to separate travel (etc.) per se, from crowd support, from facilities themselves?  I (perhaps alone? :D) find it a fascinating question, but I just don't know if there is data to answer it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on September 22, 2009, 09:48:28 AM
Could be done... Regressions between wins/winning percentages, miles between sites, attendance, home/away... Could be done for each sport/conference, but there's no way Im doing it lol...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 22, 2009, 12:01:36 PM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on September 22, 2009, 09:48:28 AM
Could be done... Regressions between wins/winning percentages, miles between sites, attendance, home/away... Could be done for each sport/conference, but there's no way Im doing it lol...
But Patrick Abegg probably could have...

Do we honestly know how much he will be missed this season?   :'(   :(
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: John Gleich on October 06, 2009, 04:49:14 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 31, 2009, 06:36:57 PM
http://www.covenant.edu/news/07.27.09

http://www.berry.edu/pr/news/pressdetail.asp?ID=775

Covenant, Berry GA and PSU-Abingdon are the three provisionals for this fall.

They can be full members in 2013.

I wonder how much President Niel Nielson had to do with this...  He's a Wheaton grad and dad of former Wheaton Bball player Jon Nielson.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: John Gleich on October 06, 2009, 05:16:56 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on May 28, 2009, 12:50:34 PM
I understand the defensiveness that many of us feel after seeing that Centenary video. We're D3's true believers, and we know better than to think that D3 is some sort of glorified intramurals that represents a dead end filled with semi-athletic wannabes. But I don't think that we should be so harsh as to call Centenary's disillusioned current athletes "lunkheads", or anything like that.

Put yourself in their shoes. They earned athletic scholarships, and for the vast majority of high school athletes in America an athletic scholarship is the Holy Grail. Their attitude towards D1 athletics is no different than that of probably 95-98% of all fans of college sports in this country. D1 is the apex, the ideal, and it consumes so much media, marketing, and advertising focus that every other level of college sports is something less than an afterthought. Thus, when that Centenary athlete speaks of the school's possible move to D3 as "folding the tent", he's not only expressing his own disappointment with losing his scholarship and his hard-earned status, he's also reflecting mainstream thought.

The corollary to that is that D3 is as close to an unknown commodity as it's possible to have in our sports-saturated society, with the exception of esoteric sports such as women's tackle football or dogsledding. It's thus prey to all sorts of misconceptions that arise from ignorance, such as the erroneous belief that D3 athletes are marginal or failed high-school athletes. Ignorance is not something that should be applauded, but it is a fact of life, and at one point or another we've all spoken out about things we don't truly understand. That doesn't make us lunkheads. It makes us human.

The cure for ignorance isn't insults. It's education. We need to get out there and inform people about what D3 really is, and about what the competitive level of our various sports is really like, rather than simply draw the wagons in a circle and react with hostility when the 98% of American athletes and sports fans who don't have a clue about D3 denigrate it.

I know it was from a long time ago, but I'm just catching up with this thread...

It was a pleasure to read Mr. Sager!  +K!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2009, 02:38:19 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 16, 2009, 09:20:05 AM
Winston-Salem State seeks return to Division II (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+ii/winston-salem+state+seeks+return+to+division+ii_09_15_09_ncaa_news)

Pull quote...

Quote
...
As for Winston-Salem State's decision to seek a return to Division II, Chancellor Donald Reaves cited resources as the reason.

"In the final analysis, the resources to complete the reclassification simply were not available, currently nor prospectively, in sufficient amounts," Reaves said in the Journal story. "If there were any reasonable way to complete this transition without diverting resources from competing academic priorities, I would have recommended that we stay the course."
...

The big winner in this might be the CIAA.

Quote...
Reaves said the school is seeking a conference affiliation before 2010-11, possibly with its previous conference, the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association.

...

Real numbers on the cost to WSSU for moving to D-1 status...

http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/sep/11/wssu-trustees-vote-stop-move-division-i/


Reaction by the MEAC as it loses WSSU as North Carolina Central was joining...

http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/sep/16/wssu-decision-surprises-meac/sports/

You will see John Dell's collection of articles on the WSSU decision.  These, and the comments section on the articles, will give you a better perspective of the situation.


Addendum:  The CIAA is the conference that Chowan NC and Lincoln PA have joined in their reclassification to D-II.
Follow-up on the story...

CIAA to reinstate Winston-Salem State (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+ii/ciaa+to+reinstate+winston-salem+state_10_07_09_ncaa_news)

Pull quotes...
Quote... once the school completes its reclassification to Division II.

Winston-Salem State, formerly a member of the CIAA until the school began a reclassification to Division I in 2004, announced it was seeking reinstatement within Division II last month. Winston-Salem State will continue to compete in the Division I Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference through 2009-10.

...

Winston-Salem State plans to compete at the Division II level effective with the 2010-11 season. The school currently sponsors 15 sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 08, 2009, 12:24:44 PM
Road to D-1

Gonna take you 13 years?  And you can get there only thru D-II?

Click here. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+i/council+proposes+membership+standards)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on October 08, 2009, 12:45:55 PM
Click here (http://goldentrianglenewspapers.com/articles/2009/10/02/mt_pleasant_news/top_stories/doc4ac63969d0bfa690257862.txt)


i would think the NAIA is gonna see more loses in the next few years to d3.




Edited for formatting...Thanks for the link.  Ralph Turner  :)

Of note, there were no schools applying for the D-III exploratory year for 2009-10.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 08, 2009, 01:44:59 PM
The IIAC would be a nice fit for Iowa Wesleyan. IWC plays fourteen of the twenty-one sports sponsored by the IIAC (it does not offer men's or women's swimming, men's or women's indoor track & field, men's or women's tennis, or wrestling), and I know that it's especially important that a prospective IIAC member have a football team. IWC might be forced to add the two indoor track & field teams, the two tennis teams, and the wrestling team, since each of the nine current IIAC members participates in those sports and thus they might be mandatory. But only four of the current IIAC members have swim teams (for either gender), so its not likely that swimming would be a sticking point for IWC to join the league.

Demographically, academically, and fiscally the school has a profile similar to the current IIAC members. Being located in the southeast corner of the state, it's a little off the beaten path for most IIAC schools, but it's certainly much less of a geographic outlier than Buena Vista. And, most importantly, the inclusion of Iowa Wesleyan would make an even ten members in the IIAC, restoring the status quo in place before Upper Iowa switched to D2 back in 2003.

Iowa Wesleyan College was a charter member of the IIAC when it was formed in 1922. It dropped out of the league in 1965. Two schools have dropped out of the IIAC and were later reinstated, Loras and William Penn (the latter left and returned on two separate occasions), so the precedent exists.

If the IIAC didn't want Iowa Wesleyan, I suppose that the SLIAC would be the next best alternative.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on October 08, 2009, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 08, 2009, 01:44:59 PM
The IIAC would be a nice fit for Iowa Wesleyan. IWC plays fourteen of the twenty-one sports sponsored by the IIAC (it does not offer men's or women's swimming, men's or women's indoor track & field, men's or women's tennis, or wrestling), and I know that it's especially important that a prospective IIAC member have a football team. IWC might be forced to add the two indoor track & field teams, the two tennis teams, and the wrestling team, since each of the nine current IIAC members participates in those sports and thus they might be mandatory. But only four of the current IIAC members have swim teams (for either gender), so its not likely that swimming would be a sticking point for IWC to join the league.

Demographically, academically, and fiscally the school has a profile similar to the current IIAC members. Being located in the southeast corner of the state, it's a little off the beaten path for most IIAC schools, but it's certainly much less of a geographic outlier than Buena Vista. And, most importantly, the inclusion of Iowa Wesleyan would make an even ten members in the IIAC, restoring the status quo in place before Upper Iowa switched to D2 back in 2003.

Iowa Wesleyan College was a charter member of the IIAC when it was formed in 1922. It dropped out of the league in 1965. Two schools have dropped out of the IIAC and were later reinstated, Loras and William Penn (the latter left and returned on two separate occasions), so the precedent exists.

If the IIAC didn't want Iowa Wesleyan, I suppose that the SLIAC would be the next best alternative.

Geographically the SLIAC isn't terrible for Iowa Wesleyan, especially considering the conference just added Spalding all the way out in Louisville. The biggest hurdle I see Iowa Wesleyan having to joining the IIAC is the lack of wrestling. It has been speculated that the lack of that sport has been what has kept Grinnell from joining the IIAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 08, 2009, 05:24:08 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on October 08, 2009, 02:54:26 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 08, 2009, 01:44:59 PM
The IIAC would be a nice fit for Iowa Wesleyan. IWC plays fourteen of the twenty-one sports sponsored by the IIAC (it does not offer men's or women's swimming, men's or women's indoor track & field, men's or women's tennis, or wrestling), and I know that it's especially important that a prospective IIAC member have a football team. IWC might be forced to add the two indoor track & field teams, the two tennis teams, and the wrestling team, since each of the nine current IIAC members participates in those sports and thus they might be mandatory. But only four of the current IIAC members have swim teams (for either gender), so its not likely that swimming would be a sticking point for IWC to join the league.

Demographically, academically, and fiscally the school has a profile similar to the current IIAC members. Being located in the southeast corner of the state, it's a little off the beaten path for most IIAC schools, but it's certainly much less of a geographic outlier than Buena Vista. And, most importantly, the inclusion of Iowa Wesleyan would make an even ten members in the IIAC, restoring the status quo in place before Upper Iowa switched to D2 back in 2003.

Iowa Wesleyan College was a charter member of the IIAC when it was formed in 1922. It dropped out of the league in 1965. Two schools have dropped out of the IIAC and were later reinstated, Loras and William Penn (the latter left and returned on two separate occasions), so the precedent exists.

If the IIAC didn't want Iowa Wesleyan, I suppose that the SLIAC would be the next best alternative.

Geographically the SLIAC isn't terrible for Iowa Wesleyan, especially considering the conference just added Spalding all the way out in Louisville. The biggest hurdle I see Iowa Wesleyan having to joining the IIAC is the lack of wrestling. It has been speculated that the lack of that sport has been what has kept Grinnell from joining the IIAC.

Wrestling is not a difficult sport to add in terms of logistics, especially in a wrestling-rich environment such as Iowa where a coach wouldn't have to travel far and wide to find high school prospects. A wrestling team would only require adding one paid position to an athletic staff; it doesn't require any stand-alone facilities apart from a gym, which every school that already offers basketball and volleyball (including Iowa Wesleyan) already has; and it doesn't require a large equipment budget, inasmuch as there isn't a lot of equipment unique to the sport and wrestling teams tend to be numerically small in terms of participants. The biggest costs would be the coach's salary and travel expenses.

The likely main obstacle to Iowa Wesleyan adding wrestling is the same reason why the sport is in such deep decline as a college sport: Title IX. It would presumably be a more acute problem due to the fact that Iowa Wesleyan already fields the sport that makes Title IX arithmetic so difficult, football. The athletic department would have to do number-crunching and adjusting that goes beyond the bounds of the wrestling team itself in order to make it work.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2009, 09:03:55 PM
DIII football, basketball equipment requirements delayed (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/diii+football%2C+basketball+equipment+requirements+delayed+101609ncaamews) 

QuoteThe NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel agreed this week to delay requiring Division III institutions to provide a visible backboard light in basketball and a wireless referee microphone in football until 2011-12.

PROP, responding to a request from the Division III Presidents Council to delay the requirements for one year, acknowledged concerns about the budgetary impact of those requirements in the current economic climate.

...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 20, 2009, 09:37:00 PM
D-1 expense ("profit/loss") numbers.

Did I see a "Centenary" in there?


Link (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+i/latest+athletics+fiscal+data+hint+at+moderation_10_20_09_ncaa_news)

QuoteData from the latest NCAA revenue and expenses report show not only the wide range of generated funds and necessary expenses but also that most schools are allocating about $8 million from institutional sources to fund their athletics programs.

...


Revenues/Expenses (http://www.ncaapublications.com/ProductsDetailView.aspx?sku=RE09&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on October 21, 2009, 03:21:31 PM
DIII proposals going forward;

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/diii+council+supports+conference-sponsored+proposals_10_21_09__ncaa_news
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 03, 2009, 10:44:09 AM
Video series (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/diii+video+series+previews+2010+proposals_11_03_09_ncaa_news) discussing legislative proposals at January Convention.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on November 03, 2009, 01:03:26 PM
In light of conversations regarding colleges adding football to increase enrollment, please click on the link below for an interesting article regarding the Title IX perspective by some individuals;

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/03/titleix
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 10, 2009, 02:13:05 PM
NCAA:  DIII moving toward debut of plan to sharpen identity  

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa%20news/ncaa%20news%20online/2009/division%20iii/diii%20moving%20toward%20debut%20of%20plan%20to%20sharpen%20identity_11_09_09_ncaa_news

[From the sidebar of D3 news items on the site, thought some might not see it].
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: awadelewis on November 11, 2009, 08:20:02 PM
It appears that the University of New Orleans is getting serious about applying to switch to Division III.  This press release was posted on UNO's website this afternoon:
http://news.uno.edu/Public/Index.asp?page_id=30&Content_ID=1744

Will be interesting to see what happens to D-III here in the south if UNO does apply to make the switch.  Both Centenary and UNO will be looking for conference affiliations and while Centenary might be a good fit for the ASC, I'm not certain where in the conference landscape UNO would end up.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2009, 09:06:49 PM
Quote from: awadelewis on November 11, 2009, 08:20:02 PM
It appears that the University of New Orleans is getting serious about applying to switch to Division III.  This press release was posted on UNO's website this afternoon:
http://news.uno.edu/Public/Index.asp?page_id=30&Content_ID=1744

Will be interesting to see what happens to D-III here in the south if UNO does apply to make the switch.  Both Centenary and UNO will be looking for conference affiliations and while Centenary might be a good fit for the ASC, I'm not certain where in the conference landscape UNO would end up.

+1  :) Thanks for the link!

Let me extend that to this consideration.

Add Belhaven a football playing school in Jackson MS, and the ASC has a vibrant 10-team East Division.


Here are travel partners:

Mississippi College* /Belhaven* (less than 20 miles apart)

UNO(*?)/Louisiana College* in Pineville (Alexandria)  207 miles apart)

Centenary(*?)/ETBU* in nearby Marshall Texas  40 miles apart

UT-Tyler/ LeTourneau both in east Texas 40 miles apart

UOzarks/UT-Dallas current members that have been paired as travel partners in some schedules.

In fact, you are only one football affiliate away from having a separate football conference if UNO, Centenary and Belhaven come on board.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on November 11, 2009, 10:42:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2009, 09:06:49 PM
Quote from: awadelewis on November 11, 2009, 08:20:02 PM
It appears that the University of New Orleans is getting serious about applying to switch to Division III.  This press release was posted on UNO's website this afternoon:
http://news.uno.edu/Public/Index.asp?page_id=30&Content_ID=1744

Will be interesting to see what happens to D-III here in the south if UNO does apply to make the switch.  Both Centenary and UNO will be looking for conference affiliations and while Centenary might be a good fit for the ASC, I'm not certain where in the conference landscape UNO would end up.

+1  :) Thanks for the link!

Let me extend that to this consideration.

Add Belhaven a football playing school in Jackson MS, and the ASC has a vibrant 10-team East Division.


Here are travel partners:

Mississippi College* /Belhaven* (less than 20 miles apart)

UNO(*?)/Louisiana College* in Pineville (Alexandria)  207 miles apart)

Centenary(*?)/ETBU* in nearby Marshall Texas  40 miles apart

UT-Tyler/ LeTourneau both in east Texas 40 miles apart

UOzarks/UT-Dallas current members that have been paired as travel partners in some schedules.

In fact, you are only one football affiliate away from having a separate football conference if UNO, Centenary and Belhaven come on board.
There are a couple of nice candidates for football affiliation not TOO far to the east in that scenario, Ralph.  ::)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2009, 11:16:10 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 11, 2009, 10:42:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2009, 09:06:49 PM
Quote from: awadelewis on November 11, 2009, 08:20:02 PM
It appears that the University of New Orleans is getting serious about applying to switch to Division III.  This press release was posted on UNO's website this afternoon:
http://news.uno.edu/Public/Index.asp?page_id=30&Content_ID=1744

Will be interesting to see what happens to D-III here in the south if UNO does apply to make the switch.  Both Centenary and UNO will be looking for conference affiliations and while Centenary might be a good fit for the ASC, I'm not certain where in the conference landscape UNO would end up.

+1  :) Thanks for the link!

Let me extend that to this consideration.

Add Belhaven a football playing school in Jackson MS, and the ASC has a vibrant 10-team East Division.


Here are travel partners:

Mississippi College* /Belhaven* (less than 20 miles apart)

UNO(*?)/Louisiana College* in Pineville (Alexandria)  207 miles apart)

Centenary(*?)/ETBU* in nearby Marshall Texas  40 miles apart

UT-Tyler/ LeTourneau both in east Texas 40 miles apart

UOzarks/UT-Dallas current members that have been paired as travel partners in some schedules.

In fact, you are only one football affiliate away from having a separate football conference if UNO, Centenary and Belhaven come on board.
There are a couple of nice candidates for football affiliation not TOO far to the east in that scenario, Ralph.  ::)

LaGrange to ETBU  598 miles
LaGrange to UNO 405 miles
LaGrange to Centenary 560 miles
LaGrange to Pineville/LaCollege  530 miles

Huntingdon is about 100 miles closer.

Hawks, I have a football fan question for you from a perspective who lives in "SEC-land".

How uncommon/unusual/unfamiliar/out-of character is it to drive from Huntingdon/LaGrange to UNO/Centenary/ETBU since that is driving thru "the SEC"?  Thanks
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on November 12, 2009, 07:11:41 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2009, 11:16:10 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on November 11, 2009, 10:42:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2009, 09:06:49 PM
Quote from: awadelewis on November 11, 2009, 08:20:02 PM
It appears that the University of New Orleans is getting serious about applying to switch to Division III.  This press release was posted on UNO's website this afternoon:
http://news.uno.edu/Public/Index.asp?page_id=30&Content_ID=1744

Will be interesting to see what happens to D-III here in the south if UNO does apply to make the switch.  Both Centenary and UNO will be looking for conference affiliations and while Centenary might be a good fit for the ASC, I'm not certain where in the conference landscape UNO would end up.

+1  :) Thanks for the link!

Let me extend that to this consideration.

Add Belhaven a football playing school in Jackson MS, and the ASC has a vibrant 10-team East Division.


Here are travel partners:

Mississippi College* /Belhaven* (less than 20 miles apart)

UNO(*?)/Louisiana College* in Pineville (Alexandria)  207 miles apart)

Centenary(*?)/ETBU* in nearby Marshall Texas  40 miles apart

UT-Tyler/ LeTourneau both in east Texas 40 miles apart

UOzarks/UT-Dallas current members that have been paired as travel partners in some schedules.

In fact, you are only one football affiliate away from having a separate football conference if UNO, Centenary and Belhaven come on board.
There are a couple of nice candidates for football affiliation not TOO far to the east in that scenario, Ralph.  ::)

LaGrange to ETBU  598 miles
LaGrange to UNO 405 miles
LaGrange to Centenary 560 miles
LaGrange to Pineville/LaCollege  530 miles

Huntingdon is about 100 miles closer.

Hawks, I have a football fan question for you from a perspective who lives in "SEC-land".

How uncommon/unusual/unfamiliar/out-of character is it to drive from Huntingdon/LaGrange to UNO/Centenary/ETBU since that is driving thru "the SEC"?  Thanks
Personnally, I have no problem driving to Louisiana/East Texas to see the Hawks. Heck, I drove to Missouri to see them play Westminster several weeks ago. Of course my wife and I are pretty much the only ones there who don't have a family member playing so I guess it probably isn't too common.  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: awadelewis on November 12, 2009, 10:43:28 AM
How to fit Huntingdon and Lagrange into this picture with UNO was one of the reasons why I didn't automatically suggest UNO as a candidate for ASC membership.   Take those three schools + Centenary, raid some of the easternmost schools from the ASC and perhaps add Maryville to the mix gives you a strong competitor to the ASC and SCAC in the South Region.   Then add the impact of travel costs on some of the SCAC schools and I can see a big potential for major conference realignment amongst the Southern schools in D-III.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2009, 03:24:51 PM
There is some shuffling going on in the South.

The USA South failed to lock up the men from the GSAC.

If/when Shenandoah leaves, then the USA South men fall short of the AQ in all sports except football where affiliate Maryville has helped then.  No AQ for men's soccer, hoops, baseball or tennis two years after Shenandoah leaves.

The GSAC-Men  (4 plus Covenant, and maybe Berry) would have made a nice division.

Let me clarify.  I was only talking about LaGrange and Huntingdon as football affiliates in a brand new conference formed out of the ASC-East.  If LaGrange and Huntingdon affiliate with that ASC-East group for football, then does that throw a monkey wrench into a future merger of the GSAC Men into the USA South?  Just something to think about.

As an AD, bringing the women out of the GSAC makes no sense.  You have a nice compact conference with all of the AQ's coming online.

There is no doubt that Centenary and UNO coming into D-III changes things.

I have always maintained that Centenary will ultimately end up in the SCAC when their new president gets the academic and financial house in order.  Still it would be nice to have a full an separate "conference" out of the ASC-East.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on November 12, 2009, 04:43:52 PM
Is Belhaven contemplating a move to D3, Ralph?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on November 12, 2009, 05:14:18 PM
How about the SCAC expand with berry, centenary, UNO and Udallas?...than break off into two 8 team divisions based on e/w geography
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2009, 05:18:03 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 12, 2009, 04:43:52 PM
Is Belhaven contemplating a move to D3, Ralph?
Not that I have heard.

They are the only NAIA football playing team in this part of the country that has the program capable of moving into D-III.

Besides, I thought that they were attractive as a travel partner for Mississippi College.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2009, 05:20:50 PM
Quote from: cush on November 12, 2009, 05:14:18 PM
How about the SCAC expand with berry, centenary, UNO and Udallas?...than break off into two 8 team divisions based on e/w geography

Good thought, but UNO is a state school in the LSU system.  They might not share the same mission and vision as the other schools in the area, e.g., Trinity, Southwestern, Austin College, Hendrix, Millsaps, etc.

That is why the ASC with state schools in UT-Dallas, UT-Tyler and Sul Ross State seems to make more sense.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on November 12, 2009, 05:24:10 PM
I agree with Ralph that UNO doesn't look like a good fit for the SCAC, although the mixed public/private environment of the ASC might be a good alternative if that school chooses to go the D3 route.

Also, Berry doesn't appear to be academically exclusive enough to receive an invitation to join the SCAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2009, 05:34:37 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 12, 2009, 05:24:10 PM
I agree with Ralph that UNO doesn't look like a good fit for the SCAC, although the mixed public/private environment of the ASC might be a good alternative if that school chooses to go the D3 route.

Also, Berry doesn't appear to be academically exclusive enough to receive an invitation to join the SCAC.
But their (Berry's) $653M endowment allows them to live in nice neighborhoods...  ;)

http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/NES2008PublicTable-AllInstitutionsByFY08MarketValue.pdf
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on November 12, 2009, 05:37:56 PM
Wow. That is a gigantic endowment by D3 standards, especially for a school that doesn't have a national profile.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2009, 10:04:26 PM
Their founder placed the college on a huge swath of land in rural Georgia - which over time through the 80's was sold (not all - but some) and built the endowment up.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: HSCTiger74 on November 12, 2009, 11:05:03 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2009, 10:04:26 PM
Their founder placed the college on a huge swath of land in rural Georgia - which over time through the 80's was sold (not all - but some) and built the endowment up.

According to Wikipedia the college still owns 26,000 acres, so if they have sold off enough land to build a $653 million endowment then huge is a very apt description.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on November 17, 2009, 02:34:14 PM
Article in the NYT today:

SUNY Weighs the Value of Division I Sports
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/sports/17suny.html?_r=1&hpw
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on November 19, 2009, 12:20:15 PM
Division III schools honored for diversity efforts

http://ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/division+iii+schools+honored+for+diversity+efforts
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2009, 01:44:04 PM
A new midwestern conference? (http://gazetteonline.com/blogs/diamonds-and-ice/2009/11/18/a-new-conference-for-cornell-coe-and-luther)

I have copied this link off the front page of D3football.com's "What we're reading" for archive purposes and our discussions.

The Associated Colleges of the Midwest (http://www.acm.edu/index.html) include 14 schools from 4 conferences.  This new conference could set ripples thru the mid portion of the country reminiscent of the "Landmark Shuffle".

Conference               MembersNon ACM members remaining
Iowa IACCoe, Cornell, Luther6
Midwest Conf.Beloit, Grinnell, Knox, Lake Forest,  Lawrence, Monmouth, Ripon   3 (Carroll, Illinois Coll, SNC)
Minnesota IACCarleton, Macalester, St Olaf8 men's (7 football)/ 9 women
SCACColorado College11 (8 football)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2009, 12:29:59 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2009, 01:44:04 PM
A new midwestern conference? (http://gazetteonline.com/blogs/diamonds-and-ice/2009/11/18/a-new-conference-for-cornell-coe-and-luther)

I have copied this link off the front page of D3football.com's "What we're reading" for archive purposes and our discussions.

The Associated Colleges of the Midwest (http://www.acm.edu/index.html) include 14 schools from 4 conferences.  This new conference could set ripples thru the mid portion of the country reminiscent of the "Landmark Shuffle".

Conference               MembersNon ACM members remaining
Iowa IACCoe, Cornell, Luther6
Midwest Conf.Beloit, Grinnell, Knox, Lake Forest,  Lawrence, Monmouth, Ripon   3 (Carroll, Illinois Coll, SNC)
Minnesota IACCarleton, Macalester, St Olaf8 men's (7 football)/ 9 women
SCACColorado College11 (8 football)
Just one more thought about this article...

What do the Midwest Conference-7 gain from this?

The travel to Colorado College and to Minnesota negates the concerns about travel in the MWC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 22, 2009, 05:49:51 PM
Academic prestige, Ralph. That group is already together for academics (much like the GLCA in the Great Lakes area). However, no one has suggested that the GLCA form an athletic conference.

If the GLCA did, it would be 12 teams with 3 from the MIAA, 1 from the HCAC (to be), 1 from the (SCAC) and 7 from the NCAC. Only Witt and Hiram from the NCAC would be excluded (counting Earlham as the HCAC).

I don't know if the ACM would want to form an athletic conference. It's one thing to band together academically, but another to do so in both academics and athletics. When push comes to shove, even those who were seemingly on one path (Earlham) move conferences for athletic reasons.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2009, 06:06:39 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 22, 2009, 05:49:51 PM
Academic prestige, Ralph. That group is already together for academics (much like the GLCA in the Great Lakes area). However, no one has suggested that the GLCA form an athletic conference.

If the GLCA did, it would be 12 teams with 3 from the MIAA, 1 from the HCAC (to be), 1 from the (SCAC) and 7 from the NCAC. Only Witt and Hiram from the NCAC would be excluded (counting Earlham as the HCAC).

I don't know if the ACM would want to form an athletic conference. It's one thing to band together academically, but another to do so in both academics and athletics. When push comes to shove, even those who were seemingly on one path (Earlham) move conferences for athletic reasons.
Yes, good points.  Academic and athletic needs don't always overlap.

We have the Associated Colleges of the South down here.  They even have a cool URL.

www.colleges.org

Centenary may be in the ACS for historical reasons, but there may be some resistance to accepting them into the SCAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 23, 2009, 09:35:30 AM
Academically, Centenary fits into the mission of the ACS. Davidson, Furman and Richmond are members as well, but I don't see them dropping to D-3 at all. Davidson, in fact, is probably the NCAA's ultimate member. A D-1 member that competes well in sports and is ranked #8 academically by US News as a national liberal arts college.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on November 23, 2009, 10:59:54 AM
 I would guess they would break into divisions of say one being:

Carleton College
Macalester College
St. Olaf College
Luther College
Lawrence University
Ripon College
Colorado College

as for the GLAC, don't think they will form an athletic league but maybe they could drop Antioch and add wittenberg and WJ to get to 14 someday.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 23, 2009, 11:08:28 AM
Well, Antioch pretty much dropped itself! Though the GLCA is helping negotiate the transition to a 'new' Antioch College.

The GLCA probably will never form an athletic conference, mainly because the athletic rivalries with Wittenberg for Wabash, Wooster and others are too good to just drop.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 23, 2009, 11:17:08 AM
Northeastern drops football!

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/ncf/news/story?id=4681701

I am wondering about the fate of the FCS (I-AA). Yes, they have a decent sized division, but except for an elite few they're money pits (except when they get a big guarantee check for losing 59-3 to a big time program). It seems the Pioneer League is excelling, though.

Perhaps instead of dropping football, Northeastern should have investigated moving to the Pioneer or Patriot League for football. The non-scholarship football model works well. Many D-3 programs actually have many things in common with the smaller FCS schools (well, except for the D-1 hoops programs).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 23, 2009, 11:25:53 AM
Sorry to ramble about this, but here's a list of recent FCS programs that could have fit into a D-3 type model, perhaps.

Boston University
Canisius
Evansville
Fairfield
Iona
LaSalle
Northeastern
St. Johns (NY)
St. Mary's (CA)
St. Peter's
Siena

Add those teams to the existing Ivy, Patriot and Pioneer, and then you may have a good division there. I wonder if the Northeast Conference's move to scholarships will be helpful or harmful for them.

What does this have to do with D-3? Well, in my mind it could solidify the thoughts of some that smaller division or non-scholarship football isn't viable, and isn't worth it. Which means that D-3 gets 'blown off' by the media at large, despite Pat's good work.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on November 23, 2009, 05:40:11 PM
smedindy

Lasalle played almost an exclusive DIII schedule when they had football. But I think those schools who have a certain number of  DI sports have to by NCAA mandate play at the FCS level in football. I remember Georgetown going threw the process and playing DIII for 2 yrs and moving up to DII for one year before having to play  at the FCS level
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on November 23, 2009, 05:55:42 PM
St. Peters did the same thing in the early 90's.  I was friends with the O-line coach and he told me of the process and the difficulties.  St. Peters tried to get grandfathered into D3 for Football but got shot down, now they have no program.

Did not notice I typed problem instead of program yesterday.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 23, 2009, 08:38:03 PM
Oh, yes, I know they have to play D-1 (the Dayton rule)...

That's why I said "model" and not D-3. Sort of a D-1AAA or D-1NS. NOT D-4...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2009, 05:03:57 PM
It's official. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/provisional+member+covenant+joins+gsac_12_01_09_ncaa_news)  Covenant joins the GSAC in 2010-11.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on December 03, 2009, 10:26:02 PM
And now Hofstra drops football...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4709412

If low attendance and student interest were the reasons to drop football, half the NCAC would be gone.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on December 03, 2009, 11:57:33 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 03, 2009, 10:26:02 PM
And now Hofstra drops football...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4709412

If low attendance and student interest were the reasons to drop football, half the NCAC would be gone.
Don't give them any ideas. :P
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: HSCTiger74 on December 04, 2009, 11:54:58 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 03, 2009, 10:26:02 PM
And now Hofstra drops football...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4709412

If low attendance and student interest were the reasons to drop football, half the NCAC would be gone.

Maybe, but I don't think that anyone in the NCAC is spending the $4.5 million per season that Hofstra reportedly was. It isn't a bottom line issue for those schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 09, 2009, 02:42:55 PM
Quote from: HSCTiger74 on December 04, 2009, 11:54:58 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 03, 2009, 10:26:02 PM
And now Hofstra drops football...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4709412

If low attendance and student interest were the reasons to drop football, half the NCAC would be gone.

Maybe, but I don't think that anyone in the NCAC is spending the $4.5 million per season that Hofstra reportedly was. It isn't a bottom line issue for those schools.

Funny how a couple of years after the Jets moved their training camp from Hofstra to FDU Florham Park, Hofstra can't afford football anymore.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: doolittledog on December 10, 2009, 05:18:52 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 23, 2009, 11:17:08 AM
Northeastern drops football!

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/ncf/news/story?id=4681701

I am wondering about the fate of the FCS (I-AA). Yes, they have a decent sized division, but except for an elite few they're money pits (except when they get a big guarantee check for losing 59-3 to a big time program). It seems the Pioneer League is excelling, though.

Perhaps instead of dropping football, Northeastern should have investigated moving to the Pioneer or Patriot League for football. The non-scholarship football model works well. Many D-3 programs actually have many things in common with the smaller FCS schools (well, except for the D-1 hoops programs).

I can't find the link now.  With state wide budget cuts going on in Iowa, the Board of Regents is studying whether UNI should continue as D1-AA with scholarships or follow the Pioneer League non-scholarship model or possibly drop to D2.  It was noted that the UNI football program lost $500,000 last year.  Drake is a school that went non-scholarship for football and it was noted Drake lost $600,000 last year.  If some eastern schools decided to go non-scholarship and they were in a conference that was close geographically and you could bus your teams to games it might work out.  If you are in a conference where you are flying your team around, you will lose money. 

In some cases it might be more cost effective to stay D1 and go the non-scholarship route.  In other cases it might be best to drop football.  If you are a small school with no football interest and will likely never make money and want to stay D1 for your other sports.  Overall, I don't see too many schools dropping football at the D1-AA level.  This goes in cycles, there were a number of schools that dropped football in the early 1980's.  Now we are seeing a few more. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 11, 2009, 08:44:12 PM
Report in the Winchester VA Star  (subscription required)

Shenandoah has decided not to seek Football affiliation in the ODAC.

The ODAC would not accept them as a full member.

SU could not find a satisfactory home in another conference.  (CSAC?  Capital AC?,  MAC? just conjecture, but those are the ones that are close.)

So, they will stay in the USA South.

This probably leaves the GSAC hanging on its own.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: MUCheats on December 12, 2009, 03:52:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 23, 2009, 11:25:53 AM
Sorry to ramble about this, but here's a list of recent FCS programs that could have fit into a D-3 type model, perhaps.

Boston University
Canisius
Evansville
Fairfield
Iona
LaSalle
Northeastern
St. Johns (NY)
St. Mary's (CA)
St. Peter's
Siena

Add those teams to the existing Ivy, Patriot and Pioneer, and then you may have a good division there. I wonder if the Northeast Conference's move to scholarships will be helpful or harmful for them.

What does this have to do with D-3? Well, in my mind it could solidify the thoughts of some that smaller division or non-scholarship football isn't viable, and isn't worth it. Which means that D-3 gets 'blown off' by the media at large, despite Pat's good work.

A lot of those schools listed above previously did sponsor Division I FCS non-scholarship programs before they dropped the sport.  I think if there was a Division I FCS non-scholarship playoff, more schools would consider going that route. 

Oh, and in regards to the Patriot League and Ivy League, while it's true that they don't offer scholarships for football, my understanding is that they use scholarship equivalents which means there is little difference between the level of play in those leagues and the level of play in other scholarship FCS leagues.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on December 12, 2009, 07:43:29 PM
From my readings in the paper today, UNO is pretty much guaranteed themselves a trip to D-3.

CarrollStreaks - Patriot League and Ivy League teams have the advantage of large endowments for scholarships and 'name' recognition. If you get a lot of financial aid and can say you went to Harvard or Lehigh, most everyone would jump at it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 27, 2009, 06:27:47 PM
This is on the periphery of D-3 at this time but not inconceivable that we won't see this occurring to D3 student-athletes.

There's nothing sporting about reporting gossip as 'news' (http://www.freep.com/article/20091227/COL01/912270470/1082/rss12)

by Detroit Free Press's Mitch Albom
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 27, 2009, 06:34:00 PM
Boys suffer in a culture without challenges (http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=304788&ac=PHedi&pg=1)

Another thought-provoking read...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on December 27, 2009, 08:23:11 PM
Ain't life complex?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ECSUalum on December 29, 2009, 02:05:52 PM
Interesting web site on differences between Divisions:

http://www.captainu.com/buzz/tag/NCAA_Divisions
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sac on December 29, 2009, 02:32:52 PM
There is a whole bunch of irony in that article being written by a guy who fabricated a final four story about MSU basketball a few years ago.......in a paper that accused a major university of violations without reporting the actual facts and NCAA rules regarding the alledged violations............also going as far as reporting where and who that schools assistant coaches got their home mortgages from, and reporting it in a way to suggest something wasn't level with the transactions.

The Free Press hardly reports sports news now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 04, 2010, 05:31:52 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 11, 2009, 09:17:21 PM
Link taken from the D3football.com "What we are reading" sidebar.

Earlham could switch leagues (http://www.pal-item.com/article/20090907/NEWS02/909070314)

Intend to compete in the HCAC  in 2010-11...

Citing economics and geography...

Pull quotes...

Quote
..."We did officially apply to be a member," said Earlham athletic director Frank Carr. "If everything would work, the intention would be we would be a member in fall of 2010."

...

Earlham's longest trip in the Heartland would be about 2 hours, 45 minutes.

"A lot of it had to do with money," Carr said. "Saving on transportation, saving on overnight trips was one of the big things. We feel like we can save maybe upwards of $70,000 to $100,000 a year with that.
But the NCAC permits affiliation for the Earlham Field Hockey team as the 7th, (to keep the AQ!).

NCAC/Earlham Field Hockey (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/earlham+field+hockey+team+stays+in+north+coast_01_04_09_ncaa_news)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 04, 2010, 06:39:57 PM
But of course they did!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 11, 2010, 04:12:14 PM
Buffalo State (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/buffalo+state+football+moving+to+empire+8+in+2012+-+01-11-10+ncaa+news) is leaving the NJAC and affiliating with the Empire 8 in 2012 for football.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2010, 09:09:06 PM
This year's legislation:

Link (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/division+iii+voting+results)

Proposal No. 6: In football, to specify that an institution may conduct one one-hour walkthrough session per day during the preseason acclimatization period, provided protective equipment such as a helmet or shoulder pads is not worn, equipment related to football such as a football or blocking sled is not used, and conditioning activities do not occur. Further, to specify that student-athletes must be provided with at least three hours of continuous recovery time between the end of the on-field practice session and the start of the walk-through session. Effective date: August 1, 2010. Adopted.

Proposal No. 7: To specify that a student-athlete's eligibility for a hardship waiver should be determined by a percent calculation using the maximum permissible number of contests or dates of competition for the applicable sport, plus one contest or date of competition. Effective date: August 1, 2010. Adopted.

Proposal No. 8: To permit a student-athlete to participate in one date of competition and an alumni contest during the nontraditional segment without using a season of participation. Effective date: August 1, 2010. Adopted.

Proposal No. 9: To permit institutions to conduct the exempted alumni contest at any time during the playing season, including before the first permissible contest date. Effective date: August 1, 2010. Approved.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on January 19, 2010, 12:44:26 AM
Unanimous D3 vote sparks presidential-leadership initiative



http://ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/unanimous+vote+sparks+presidential-leadership+initiative (http://ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/unanimous+vote+sparks+presidential-leadership+initiative)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2010, 02:17:14 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 27, 2009, 02:05:07 AM
The NCAA carried this story of affiliation to gain Pool A status in Men's Golf.

Three Landmark golf programs link up with Empire 8 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/three+landmark+golf+programs+link+up+with+empire+8_08_25_09_ncaa_news)

Quote... Landmark members Moravian, Scranton and Susquehanna will first compete alongside the five Empire 8 schools sponsoring the sport in a championship tournament next month and again in April 2010.

The new associate members join Elmira, Nazareth, St. John Fisher (which finished third at the 2008 Division III Men's Golf Championships led by individual medalist Scott Harris Jr.), Stevens Institute of Technology and Utica in competing for Empire 8 honors.    ...

Fellow Landmark member Merchant Marine affiliated with the Liberty League in 2009-10 to give 7 members.  The LL should earn the Golf AQ in 2011-12.

A July 1st press release from the New England Collegiate Conference announced the affiliation of Babson (NEWMAC) with the NECC.

Quote...They [Babson] will join NECC members Becker College, Daniel Webster College, Elms College, Mitchell College and Newbury College, along with fellow NEWMAC member Springfield College who is also an associate member in men's golf. ...

That still leaves NEWMAC member MIT as an independent (Pool B) school sponsoring golf.

In Men's Golf Central Region, UMAC schools that sponsor golf include Bethany Lutheran, Crown, Martin Luther, UMinn-Morris, Northwestern and Presentation, plus 4th-year provisional (and affiliate member) North Central MN.  That gives 7 schools.  If the UMAC wanted to invite Finlandia to affiliate in Men's Golf beginning with the 2009-10 school year, then the UMAC could have an AQ by the 2012 tourney. Otherwise, when North Central becomes a full member of D-III, the UMAC should get its Pool A bid two years later.

The 2009 tourney had 27 Pool A bids, 7 Pool B bids and 2 Pool C bids.  With 8 schools moving from Pool B to Pool A under the Empire 8 banner, 7 schools moving to Pool A in the Liberty League, 7 schools moving to Pool A under the NECC banner and the potential for 7 more schools to move to Pool A in the UMAC, that would change the Men's Golf allocation to 31 Pool A's 3 Pool B's and 2 Pool C bids.

Along those lines, GSAC members Huntingdon, LaGrange and Piedmont are in Pool B, but the USA South is in danger of losing Shenandoah, which would put the USA South Pool A bid in jeopardy.  (GSAC/USA South merger discussions were recently discontinued.)

We may see more affiliations in Men's Golf to gain access to Pool A.

The Capital AC has these 5 schools sponsoring Men's Golf:  Hood, Marymount, Stevenson, Wesley and York PA.

The Commonwealth Coast Conference has 6 schools that sponsor men's golf:  Anna Marie, Endicott, New England, Nichols, Wentworth Tech and Western New England.  (Men's golf is not a sponsored sport by the CCC.)

The MASCAC has 4 schools that sponsor men's golf:  Mass College of the Liberal Arts, Salem State, Westfield and Worcester State.

UAA schools (5) that sponsor golf include Brandeis, Carnegie-Mellon, Emory, NYU and Rochester.

That leaves the other (7) independents (2008-09 Handbook):

Northeast Region:  UMaine-Presque Isle, SUNY-Potsdam.

Mid-Atlantic Region:  SUNY-Oswego.  (Rutgers-Camden has affiliated with the NEAC.)

Central Region: Neb. Wesleyan, UW-Eau Claire and UW-Stout

Southeast and Great Lakes Regions:  (See GSAC, UAA  and Capital AC.)

West Region: Chapman. (University of Dallas is in an affiliation arrangement with the NEAC.))


New Jersey City and William Paterson (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/two+new+jersey+schools+add+mens+golf_08_14_09_ncaa_news) join Rutgers-Camden in sponsoring men's golf.

2009 Men's Golf Handbook (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/golf/2009/3_mgolf_handbook.pdf)

Pool B is going away...




Disclaimer:  The Handbook does not break down membership by conference, so I may be missing some unusual affiliations.

Men's Golf Update...

27 Pool A, 7 Pool B 3, Pool C.

2010 Handbook (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/golf/2010/10_3_m_golf.pdf)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 29, 2010, 08:41:19 AM
The latest NACUBO endowment study has been released:

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2009_NCSE_Public_Tables_Endowment_Market_Values.pdf

Pretty grim numbers; if a school lost less than 15% of its endowment in the 12 months covered by the study, it did better than most. 

Survey period ended June 30, 2009, so most schools should be up since then.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2010, 10:03:54 PM
McMurry (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/mcmurry+explores+appropriate+honoring+of+native+americans_02_03_10_ncaa_news) to host a symposium to explore appropriate ways to honor Native Americans

I am very excited to post this notice.

We have invited C-Span and the History Channel to broadcast the symposium.

Press Release at ASC webpage (http://www.ascsports.org/news/2010/2/3/GEN_0203102552.aspx)

pdf announcement (http://www.mcm.edu/newsite/web/univ_relations/pdf/Quest.pdf)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2010, 11:03:10 AM
Mininum of 2 Pool C berths (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/diii+proposal+seeks+minimum+number+of+at-large+berths_02_15_10_ncaa_news)

Quote...While championships policy has been to retain a minimum of two Pool C berths for Division III team championships, it is not legislatively required. As part of a larger effort to align the division's championships policies and bylaws, the committee recommended adopting legislation to require a minimum of two at-large berths in each championship.

The Division III Management Council will consider the recommendation in April.  ...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2010, 03:47:55 PM
Moravian Cuts Men's and Womens' Lacrosse (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/moravian+cuts+lacrosse+in+move+to+boost+financial+aid_02_19_10_ncaa_news).

Landmark Conference is back to 6 full members sponsoring the sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: BaseballFan on March 01, 2010, 08:35:08 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 21, 2009, 08:19:26 AM
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.

Havent looked at a lot of private schools rosters, but not a lot of minorities in Midwest private schools baseball rosters.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on March 01, 2010, 10:51:36 PM
Wow, I don't know how to rebut that argument.

Well, actually I do.

Most private school 'scholarships' are actually part of their aid package they would have received anyway. The school has received money from donors in the endowment. Yes, there are criteria, but financial aid packages the aid to satisfy the donors and also give the students all of the aid they are entitled to.

That minority 'full ride' is usually based on several factors. Full ride scholarships aren't tossed around lightly by anyone.

Private schools have more latitude than public schools, but on the whole public schools cost a heck of a lot less. I am sure that it would cost you less to attend Worcester State than Amherst, even with the aid Amherst can give you.

Yes, D-3 has a lot of private schools. D-2 has a lot of public schools. D-1 has a mixture.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2010, 07:14:29 PM
Wheaton IL to cut five programs. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/wheaton+%28illinois%29+cuts+five+of+its+22+varsity+sports_03_04_10_ncaa_news)

Men's Golf.  (Leaves 7 Men's Teams in the CCIW -- CCIW Men's Golf AQ is intact.)
Women's Golf. (Leaves 6 Women's Teams in the CCIW --Women's Golf AQ is in jeopardy.)
Men's Tennis.  (Leaves 5 CCIW teams playing Men's Tennis)
Men's Indoor Track.
Women's Water Polo. (An independent and one of 18 D-III's among the 59 NCAA schools that sponsor Women's Water Polo.)


EDIT: Per Mr Ypsi, both Golf teams and Men's Tennis has been re-instated.
http://athletics.wheaton.edu/news/2010/3/5/GEN_reinstate.aspx?path=gen


Thanks to Mr Ypsi for the update.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 04, 2010, 07:31:22 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2010, 07:14:29 PM
Wheaton IL to cut five programs. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/wheaton+%28illinois%29+cuts+five+of+its+22+varsity+sports_03_04_10_ncaa_news)

Men's Golf.  (Leaves 7 Men's Teams in the CCIW -- CCIW Men's Golf AQ is intact.)
Women's Golf. (Leaves 6 Women's Teams in the CCIW --Women's Golf AQ is in jeopardy.)
Men's Tennis.  (Leaves 5 CCIW teams playing Men's Tennis)
Men's Indoor Track.
Women's Water Polo. (An independent and one of 18 D-III's among the 59 NCAA schools that sponsor Women's Water Polo.)

Would be a total shame for women's golf.  Wheaton ALMOST caught IWU this year (7 strokes); without them IWU would have won by 56 strokes! :o

Fortunately, I think IWU is good enough to win a Pool B or C spot, but a shame nonetheless.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 04, 2010, 09:59:47 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2010, 07:14:29 PM
Women's Golf. (Leaves 6 Women's Teams in the CCIW --Women's Golf AQ is in jeopardy.)

No, there's seven women's golf teams left in the CCIW. Wheaton will be the only school not to field a women's golf team.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2010, 10:06:50 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 04, 2010, 09:59:47 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2010, 07:14:29 PM
Women's Golf. (Leaves 6 Women's Teams in the CCIW --Women's Golf AQ is in jeopardy.)

No, there's seven women's golf teams left in the CCIW. Wheaton will be the only school not to field a women's golf team.
Thanks for the response, GS.  This is the link to the CCIW website where I got the information.  Has North Park added Women's Golf for 2010-11?

http://www.cciw.org/fall_golf_w/index.php
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 04, 2010, 10:25:16 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2010, 10:06:50 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 04, 2010, 09:59:47 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2010, 07:14:29 PM
Women's Golf. (Leaves 6 Women's Teams in the CCIW --Women's Golf AQ is in jeopardy.)

No, there's seven women's golf teams left in the CCIW. Wheaton will be the only school not to field a women's golf team.
Thanks for the response, GS.  This is the link to the CCIW website where I got the information.  Has North Park added Women's Golf for 2010-11?

http://www.cciw.org/fall_golf_w/index.php

North Park never dropped it. The Vikings simply didn't have enough golfers at last fall's CCIW meet to qualify for the final team leaderboard.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 04, 2010, 10:37:54 PM
NPU has always fielded a women's golf team.  Unfortunately they golf about like me! ;D

IWU has won 8 years in a row.  The lack of Wheaton is a big blow to the conference, since they came within 7 strokes of derailing the Titans this last fall.  Without Wheatoin, the Titans would have won by FIFTY SIX strokes! :o
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 05, 2010, 10:33:41 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 04, 2010, 10:37:54 PM
NPU has always fielded a women's golf team.  Unfortunately they golf about like me! ;D

Take it down a notch, Chuck. There's nothing wrong with NPU's lady golfers. For an unrecruited bunch, they golf just fine. There simply weren't enough of them last year to qualify for the final team leaderboard.

North Park's golf teams are an afterthought. They're coached by two of the men's basketball coaches -- head coach Paul Brenegan coaches the men's golf team, assistant coach Chris Edquist coaches the women's golf team -- and they obviously devote most of their time and energy to the hardwood rather than the links. There's no real recruitment for golf, to the best of my knowledge; they simply contact any applicant to NPU who indicates an interest in the sport on their application, and then open it up to anyone else on campus who wants to participate. That means that the Vikings will typically bring up the rear in the conference golf standings, and that on occasion -- it happened four straight years at the beginning of the '00s as well -- the women's team won't field enough golfers for the team to qualify at the conference meet. No big deal. The golf teams are still fully-funded varsity sports. It's not as though there's a tremendous amount of prestige attached to golf in the CCIW, where courses frequently have snow on them into April.

To the best of my knowledge, Wheaton didn't really devote much time or effort to recruiting for golf, either, which is likely a big reason why that school has done away with the men's and women's golf teams. The reason why Wheaton has done better at the sport than has NPU is simple: Wheaton kids are a lot more likely to come from wealthy families. I think we all know what economic bracket produces the most golfers in terms of the sport's youth demographic.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 04, 2010, 10:37:54 PM
IWU has won 8 years in a row.  The lack of Wheaton is a big blow to the conference, since they came within 7 strokes of derailing the Titans this last fall.  Without Wheatoin, the Titans would have won by FIFTY SIX strokes! :o

You gonna spam every board with that announcement, Chuck? I've seen it in more places than I have Pat's invitation to join the tournament pool. ::)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on March 05, 2010, 11:08:46 AM
Oooh...a inter-CCIW fight!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on March 05, 2010, 11:39:45 AM
Quote from: smedindy on March 05, 2010, 11:08:46 AM
Oooh...a inter-CCIW fight!

I think it's supposed to be intra-CCIW.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sac on March 05, 2010, 11:46:39 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 05, 2010, 10:33:41 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 04, 2010, 10:37:54 PM
NPU has always fielded a women's golf team.  Unfortunately they golf about like me! ;D

Take it down a notch, Chuck. There's nothing wrong with NPU's lady golfers. For an unrecruited bunch, they golf just fine. There simply weren't enough of them last year to qualify for the final team leaderboard.

North Park's golf teams are an afterthought. They're coached by two of the men's basketball coaches -- head coach Paul Brenegan coaches the men's golf team, assistant coach Chris Edquist coaches the women's golf team -- and they obviously devote most of their time and energy to the hardwood rather than the links. There's no real recruitment for golf, to the best of my knowledge; they simply contact any applicant to NPU who indicates an interest in the sport on their application, and then open it up to anyone else on campus who wants to participate. That means that the Vikings will typically bring up the rear in the conference golf standings, and that on occasion -- it happened four straight years at the beginning of the '00s as well -- the women's team won't field enough golfers for the team to qualify at the conference meet. No big deal. The golf teams are still fully-funded varsity sports. It's not as though there's a tremendous amount of prestige attached to golf in the CCIW, where courses frequently have snow on them into April.

To the best of my knowledge, Wheaton didn't really devote much time or effort to recruiting for golf, either, which is likely a big reason why that school has done away with the men's and women's golf teams. The reason why Wheaton has done better at the sport than has NPU is simple: Wheaton kids are a lot more likely to come from wealthy families. I think we all know what economic bracket produces the most golfers in terms of the sport's youth demographic.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 04, 2010, 10:37:54 PM
IWU has won 8 years in a row.  The lack of Wheaton is a big blow to the conference, since they came within 7 strokes of derailing the Titans this last fall.  Without Wheatoin, the Titans would have won by FIFTY SIX strokes! :o

You gonna spam every board with that announcement, Chuck? I've seen it in more places than I have Pat's invitation to join the tournament pool. ::)


Depending on the arrangement with whatever course a school plays and practices at, it can also be surprisingly expensive on a per-athlete  basis.   Factor in a lot of the spring tournaments are often 2 day events which require an overnight stay and a long drive.

I don't know about where the CCIW plays, but the MIAA plays on mostly country clubs, some of them very nice and expensive.

The way Greg describes NPU recruiting is the way the great majority of D3 programs approach golf I would guess.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on March 06, 2010, 02:24:30 PM
And I thought that Wheaton College had more money than God, or at least a joint checking account.

On the other side of this coin, the College of Wooster has recently announced a $30 million expansion (http://www.wooster.edu/Athletics/Athletic_Facilities/rec_center) to the existing Armington Physical Education Center to create a 123,000 sq. ft. Student Recreation Center, complete with an indoor track, set to open in just under two years.

And we're adding women's golf (http://www.wooster.edu/en/Athletics/Athletics-News/2009/September/Womens-Golf-Announcement) next year, bringing the College to 23 varsity sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2010, 03:16:56 PM
A follow-up on Wheaton dropping sports - 3 of the teams have now been given a reprieve (both golf teams plus men's tennis).  Don't know whether they simply reconsidered or whether a wealthy alum came through with some bucks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2010, 11:50:36 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2010, 03:16:56 PM
A follow-up on Wheaton dropping sports - 3 of the teams have now been given a reprieve (both golf teams plus men's tennis).  Don't know whether they simply reconsidered or whether a wealthy alum came through with some bucks.

I'm guessing the latter. Nothing gets a wealthy alumnus's attention quicker than his alma mater dropping a sport, particularly if it's a sport that the alumnus (or alumna -- I don't wanna be sexist and assume anything) once played at the school.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 08, 2010, 12:56:20 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2010, 11:50:36 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2010, 03:16:56 PM
A follow-up on Wheaton dropping sports - 3 of the teams have now been given a reprieve (both golf teams plus men's tennis).  Don't know whether they simply reconsidered or whether a wealthy alum came through with some bucks.

I'm guessing the latter. Nothing gets a wealthy alumnus's attention quicker than his alma mater dropping a sport, particularly if it's a sport that the alumnus (or alumna -- I don't wanna be sexist and assume anything) once played at the school.

Wheaton donors (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/donors+save+three+wheaton+illinois+sports+ncaa+news+030810)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hugenerd on March 23, 2010, 10:23:03 AM
What do people think of the new DIII Identity videos?

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/diii+identity+videos+available+online_03_23_10_ncaa_news

I personally didnt like the 30 second spot, but the 5 minute spot seemed more accurate.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 05, 2010, 11:05:43 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2010, 07:14:29 PM
Wheaton IL to cut five programs. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/wheaton+%28illinois%29+cuts+five+of+its+22+varsity+sports_03_04_10_ncaa_news)

Men's Golf.  (Leaves 7 Men's Teams in the CCIW -- CCIW Men's Golf AQ is intact.)
Women's Golf. (Leaves 6 Women's Teams in the CCIW --Women's Golf AQ is in jeopardy.)
Men's Tennis.  (Leaves 5 CCIW teams playing Men's Tennis)
Men's Indoor Track.
Women's Water Polo. (An independent and one of 18 D-III's among the 59 NCAA schools that sponsor Women's Water Polo.)


EDIT: Per Mr Ypsi, both Golf teams and Men's Tennis has been re-instated.
http://athletics.wheaton.edu/news/2010/3/5/GEN_reinstate.aspx?path=gen


Thanks to Mr Ypsi for the update.




Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 08, 2010, 12:56:20 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2010, 11:50:36 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2010, 03:16:56 PM
A follow-up on Wheaton dropping sports - 3 of the teams have now been given a reprieve (both golf teams plus men's tennis).  Don't know whether they simply reconsidered or whether a wealthy alum came through with some bucks.

I'm guessing the latter. Nothing gets a wealthy alumnus's attention quicker than his alma mater dropping a sport, particularly if it's a sport that the alumnus (or alumna -- I don't wanna be sexist and assume anything) once played at the school.

Wheaton donors (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/donors+save+three+wheaton+illinois+sports+ncaa+news+030810)




And now Wheaton finds donors for Women's Water Polo.

Wheaton Women's Water Polo (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/wheaton+%28illinois%29+reinstates+womens+water+polo_04_05_10_ncaa_news)

Only Men's Indoor Track and Field has not been re-instated.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on April 08, 2010, 06:01:27 PM
DIII pilots program for faculty representatives (http://ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/diii+pilots+program+for+faculty+representatives_04_08_10_ncaa_news)



Edited for formatting. -- Thanks for the link. Ralph Turner
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 10, 2010, 06:03:45 PM
Ohio Wesleyan adds Women's Golf in 2010-11. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/ohio+wesleyan+adds+womens+golf_04_09_10_ncaa_news)

This will give the NCAC 6 teams sponsoring Women's Golf.

QuoteOhio Wesleyan becomes the sixth North Coast Athletic Conference institution to sponsor women's golf, joining Allegheny, Denison, Hiram, Wittenberg and Wooster. The NCAC will conduct its first women's golf championship in 2010-11.

There was no mention of any affiliation agreements with other schools to help the NCAC achieve the AQ in Women's Golf.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 12, 2010, 07:15:57 PM
I have placed this quote from an archival post that I made in Feb 2009 on the board for our consideration.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 04, 2009, 08:09:29 PM
NEAC-NAC affiliation (http://www.nacathletics.com/news/NEAC_partnership) for baseball, women's lacrosse, and men's and women's tennis.

Here is some creative leadership among these two conferences to maintain an AQ bid.

This preserves the opportunities for student-athletes in these sports.

QuoteFeb 4, 2009

NAC, NEAC enter partnership to expand associate membership

The North Atlantic Conference (NAC) and North Eastern Athletic Conference (NEAC) have entered into a partnership to expand associate membership. The NEAC will gain associate members in the sports of baseball and women's tennis while the NAC will add members for  men's tennis and women's lacrosse.

The partnership, which impacts nearly all of the current NEAC and NAC membership, provides a conference championship opportunity for student-athletes of both geographically diverse conferences.

"The North Atlantic Conference is committed to providing equitable opportunities for our student-athletes in all sports," said Dave Wolk, President of Castleton State College and Chair of the NAC Presidents Council. "This partnership will help us meet this goal in sports where conference sponsorship is limited. Both conferences support the Division III philosophy and we welcome the opportunity to join with like-minded institutions to ensure the best possible experiences for all student-athletes."

In the sport of baseball, NAC members Castleton, Husson, Lyndon St., Maine-Farmington and Thomas will join the NEAC as associate members. Divisional play will begin in the spring of 2010. Each division will hold a championship and the two divisional champions will meet for a three game series to determine the conference champion. The conference championship site will rotate between the WEST (hosted at either SUNY Cobleskill or SUNYIT) and the EAST (hosted by Castleton). The NEAC will maintain the automatic qualifier they currently hold to the NCAA Division III Championship.

NEAC members Cazenovia, College of St. Elizabeth, Keuka, Penn. St-Abington, Wells and Wilson will join the NAC as associate members in women's lacrosse. Medaille, a current NEAC associate member, will join the NAC as well. Divisional play will begin in the spring of 2010. Each division will hold a championship and the two divisional champions will meet for a conference champion game. The conference championship site will rotate between the EAST (hosted at either Castleton or Green Mountain) and the WEST (hosted by SUNYIT or SUNY Cobleskill). Beginning in 2010, the NAC will begin a two year waiting period to qualify for an automatic bid to the NCAA Division III Championship.

A similar divisional structure will begin for men's and women's tennis in the spring of 2010. NAC members Castleton, Johnson St., Lyndon St. and Thomas will join the NEAC as associate members in women's tennis. Divisional play for the EAST will be in the fall with a divisional champion crowned. The WEST division will compete in the spring and the two divisional champions will meet for the conference championship in the spring. The NEAC will maintain the automatic qualifier they currently hold to the NCAA Division III Championship.

In men's tennis, NEAC members Keuka, Penn St.-Abington, Penn St.-Berks, Penn St.-Harrisburg and SUNY Cobleskill will join the NAC as associate members. SUNY Oneonta, a current NEAC associate member, will join the NAC as well. Both divisions will compete in the spring with the divisional winners meeting for the conference championship. In 2010, the NAC will begin a two year waiting period to qualify for an automatic bid to the NCAA Division III Championship.

"I think this new initiative presents a great opportunity for our Conference and our student athletes," said Keuka College President Dr. Joseph G. Burke who currently serves as Chair of the NEAC President's Council. "We increase our regional exposure and our student athletes have the opportunity to play against teams that they would not normally have the opportunity to play."

NEAC Sponsored Sports    
Baseball
       
EAST
Castleton
Husson
Lyndon St.
Maine-Farmington
Thomas

WEST
Cazenovia
Keuka
Penn St.-Abington
Penn St.-Berks
Penn St.-Harrisburg
SUNY Cobleskill
SUNYIT
   
Women's Tennis
EAST
Castleton
Johnson St.
Lyndon St.
Thoma

WEST
Col. of St. Elizabeth
Keuka
Penn St.-Abington
Penn St.-Berks
Penn St.-Harrisburg
SUNY Cobleskill
Wells
Wilson

NAC Sponsored Sports   
Men's Tennis


EAST
Castleton
Green Mountain
Johnson St.
Lyndon St.
Thomas

WEST
Keuka
Penn St.-Abington
Penn St.-Berks
Penn St.-Harrisburg
SUNY Cobleskill
SUNY Oneonta
   
Women's Lacrosse
EAST
Green Mountain
Husson
Maine-Farmington
Thomas

WEST
Cazenovia
Col. of St. Elizabeth
Keuka
Medaille
Penn St.-Abington
Wells
Wilson

Copied for archival purposes...
With the departure of 9 schools from The Commonwealth Coast Conference, leaving 5 schools in the TCCC, is there are chance that the North Atlantic Conference picks up some of the TCCC's remaining schools?

How about an affiliation agreement between the TCCC and the NAC in about 2013-14 when the AQ for TCCC has expired?  The NEAC is in a position to pick up any PSU-schools that want to move to D-III.  We already have PSU-Abington and SUNY-Cobleskill in the provisional pipeline for the NEAC.

It looks like some shuffling will occur.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 12, 2010, 11:59:07 PM
Centenary joins the ASC.

Video links (http://www.ascsports.org/news/2010/4/9/GEN_0409100445.aspx) to comments by Dr Rowe, AD Tillich and Commissioner Carlton at the bottom.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 13, 2010, 12:11:13 PM
Congrats upon your circuit's new acquisition, Ralph!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 17, 2010, 10:06:57 PM
New NAIA members in 2009-10 (http://naia.cstv.com/genrel/041510aac.html)

QuoteKANSAS CITY, Mo. – The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) Council of Presidents approved six new members, effective July 1, 2010, bringing to ten the total number of new members approved during the current academic year. Newly elected members announced at the 69th Annual NAIA Convention are: AIB College of Business (Iowa); La Sierra (Calif.) University; Lourdes (Ohio) College; Marymount (Calif.) College; Roosevelt (Ill.) University; and Southwestern Christian (Okla.) University. This past fall during the NAIA Council of Presidents meeting the following four institutions were approved: Benedictine University at Springfield (Ill.), Central Baptist (Ark.) College; State University of New York - College of Environmental Science & Forestry; and Warren Wilson (N.C.) College. Total membership now stands at 296.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 18, 2010, 01:10:26 AM
Reaction:
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/04/18/the-final-word-on-la-sierra
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 18, 2010, 02:25:03 AM
While searching for information on LaSierra, I came across this news release from 2002.

Independents and D-III (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2002/division+iii/division+iii+independents+trading+independence+for+common+voice+-+6-10-02)

Look at where the independents are now.

Quote
...
Steering committee

Athletics administrators at independent institutions are invited to join the Division III independents group by contacting a member of the steering committee.
Members of the Division III Independents Steering Committee are:

Dick Strockbine, athletics director at the University of Dallas, chair  Affiliate in the NEAC

Marv Christopher, athletics director at Cazenovia College  NEAC

David Currey, athletics director at Chapman University

Julie Davis, athletics director at the University of Maine, Farmington  North Atlantic Conference

Debby De Angelis, athletics director at California State University, Hayward  D-II

Jim Huckaby, athletics director at Baptist Bible College (Pennsylvania)  CSAC

Joel Nielsen, athletics director, and Julie Soriero, senior woman administrator, at Colorado College  SCAC

Page Remillard, athletics director at Agnes Scott College  Great South AC

Ira Zeff, athletics director at Nebraska Wesleyan University

There are three new conferences represented, and the CSAC has just been transformed in the Mid-Atlantic Shuffle.  The GSAC, the NEAC and the NAC have each earned the AQ since 2002.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 18, 2010, 08:21:53 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 17, 2010, 10:06:57 PM
New NAIA members in 2009-10 (http://naia.cstv.com/genrel/041510aac.html)

QuoteKANSAS CITY, Mo. – The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) Council of Presidents approved six new members, effective July 1, 2010, bringing to ten the total number of new members approved during the current academic year. Newly elected members announced at the 69th Annual NAIA Convention are: AIB College of Business (Iowa); La Sierra (Calif.) University; Lourdes (Ohio) College; Marymount (Calif.) College; Roosevelt (Ill.) University; and Southwestern Christian (Okla.) University. This past fall during the NAIA Council of Presidents meeting the following four institutions were approved: Benedictine University at Springfield (Ill.), Central Baptist (Ark.) College; State University of New York - College of Environmental Science & Forestry; and Warren Wilson (N.C.) College. Total membership now stands at 296.

In spite of the NAIA's recent attempt to police its membership a bit by banning schools that are in the process of transferring over to the NCAA from participating in NAIA championship tournaments, it's falling short of that goal. Roosevelt University, a medium-sized commuter school located in Chicago's Loop, is in the process of reviving its athletic department after disbanding it two decades ago. The thing is, the school has explicitly stated that its ultimate intention is to use the NAIA as a springboard to joining NCAA D3 (and, presumably, the NAthCon), which it will do once it has enough teams up and running. Apparently, nobody at NAIA headquarters saw that announcement.

SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, which is located adjacent to the Syracuse University campus (I always thought it was peculiar that a forestry school was located in the heart of a city), is another school that used to have sports teams back in the day before discontinuing its athletic department. ESF doesn't have basketball yet, but I think that that's a sport that it will revive.

Benedictine University at Springfield is worth mentioning because its parent school in suburban Lisle west of Chicago is a long-standing D3 member currently affiliated with the NAthCon. The downstate school in question was (and still is) called Springfield College. It was a private two-year institution that was merged into Benedictine back in 2003. It has continued to participate in athletics on the juco level, as Springfield College; presumably, the entrance into the NAIA means that the juniors and seniors on the Springfield campus who are progressing towards their bachelor's degrees from Benedictine will now be able to participate in sports as well, and that the Springfield College moniker will finally be laid to rest.

Too bad about LaSierra, but the people for whom I feel the worst are the good folks at Chapman who will find LaSierra's passing from the D3 scene to be yet another frustrating hurdle to overcome in terms of finding local D3 competition.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: dahlby on April 18, 2010, 11:27:11 PM
With an enrollment of just over 1,000 students, La Sierra has had its problems with enough participants to field a team to play a game, let alone a full squad to have effective practices. Men's basketball being the exception. During a D3 BB Indy Tourney this year,  hosted out iin Riverside, I had the opportunity to speak with several La Sierra personnel and that they are hopeful, by now being able to offer athletic scholarships, they  will be able to field a full roster that will not only eliminate the need to cancel contests due to the lack of enough to start the game, but to also have effective practices. I think that most coaches are walk-ons with other jobs, so I would assume they don't have much time for recruiting. I have spoken with most coaches of the various sports. I find them committed and overall good people with good intentions. But, if you don't have the students, or enough quality recruiting, you can't be competitive iin this environment, with 8 other D3 schools within driving distance of each other, along with another group of established NAIA teams in a very competative NAIA conference and several JUCO'S. I am sure Chapman, and other D3's will continue to schedule them, and I do respect their efforts, but it apparently was not meant to be.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 22, 2010, 12:22:59 PM
Since Division III's budget is based on a fixed percentage of the NCAA budget, the new Division I March Madness contract should lead to a bigger budget in Division III.

http://bit.ly/a8EoQz
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 25, 2010, 11:46:20 AM
Study: NCAA graduation rate comparisons flawed (http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20100421/SPORTS02/4210323/1026/SPORTS02)

A new study suggests that a statistical flaw relied upon by the NCAA means that graduation rates for major college football and men's basketball players lag behind those of other students — not the other way around.

The NCAA's most recent report on Division I graduation, ...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 30, 2010, 08:19:07 PM
D-III Presidents... (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/diii+presidents+endorse+increased+leadership+concepts_04_30_10_ncaa_news)

Pertinent quote...

QuoteBudget review

The Presidents Council also reviewed a report from the Division III Strategic Planning and Finance Committee that outlines budget recommendations for the next two years. The matter rose in significance in light of last week's announcement that the NCAA opted out of the final three years of its broadcast-rights agreement with CBS Sports and signed a 14-year, $10.8 billion deal with CBS and Turner Broadcasting to present the Division I Men's Basketball Championship.

Since the payouts from the first three years of the new agreement differ slightly than those that were projected from the old contract, the Division III Presidents Council needed to revisit its biennial budget allocations.

Members noted that the first year of the new broadcasting agreement has been structured to essentially mirror the revenues projected during 2010-11 under the previous agreement. All of the recommendations contained within this budget for new expenditures, except one (a new men's volleyball championship in 2011-12), are focused on that first year, 2010-11.

The recommended 2010-11 budget expenses are $24,330,978, which represents a $1.3 million increase in the division's base budget. On the revenue side, the division will receive an additional $1.3 million from the Association next year, for a total allocation of about $23.9 million.

That leaves a $449,178 shortfall, which the Council agreed would be funded through the division's reserve. Members noted that while this approach has been approved for the last two consecutive biennial budgets, it has not been necessary to actually use reserve funds since the championships budgets has consistently finished significantly below budget projections.

The difference in projected income is more pronounced in the second year of the new agreement, which also is the second year of this biennial budget. While projected revenue will not grow by the former 7 percent annual escalation, it will still grow by about 2 percent (or about $400,000) to $24.3 million.

The Council agreed that amount, combined with limited funding from the reserve, will be sufficient to pay for the new championship, as well as related inflationary expenses.

The Council did ask the Strategic Planning and Finance Committee to consider modifying the annual 4 percent inflationary charge the division has built into its annual championships budgets to 2.5 percent.

The Council also asked that group to review the division's reserve policy. Currently, the division holds in reserve an amount equal to at least 10 percent of the division's annual allocation from the Association. That equals about $2.3 million next year. In reality, though, the reserve has grown to about $13 million, and the presidents want the Strategic Planning and Finance Committee to review what an appropriate reserve policy would be, given the revenue projections under the new broadcasting agreement.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 01, 2010, 12:38:30 AM
Interesting:

"Members noted that while this approach has been approved for the last two consecutive biennial budgets, it has not been necessary to actually use reserve funds since the championships budgets has consistently finished significantly below budget projections."

I am sure the SCIAC, ASC and NWC are thrilled to hear this.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 06, 2010, 06:28:18 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 01, 2010, 12:38:30 AM
Interesting:

"Members noted that while this approach has been approved for the last two consecutive biennial budgets, it has not been necessary to actually use reserve funds since the championships budgets has consistently finished significantly below budget projections."

I am sure the SCIAC, ASC and NWC are thrilled to hear this.
Yeah.   >:(
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 06, 2010, 06:30:50 PM
Interesting.  FYI.

Around DII: Florida Tech explores new football program (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+ii/around+division+ii+florida+tech+explores+new+football+program_05_06_10_ncaa_news)


Pull quote...

QuoteSunshine State Conference Commissioner Jay Jones said the decision is limited only to Florida Tech, which plans to compete as an NAIA member in football, should it choose to sponsor the sport.

"No other conference schools are exploring football at this time," Jones said. "To be an SSC sport, our bylaws require a majority of our schools − five in the present case − sponsor a particular sport. So, the SSC will not have football in the foreseeable future, and it is not under consideration."

Florida Tech President Anthony J. Catanese (pictured) said the institution could launch non-scholarship NAIA football by fall 2011 after a year of fund-raising. The institution hopes to raise  $821,000 for fiscal year 2011 and $1.9  million for 2012 to avoid using other revenues
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on May 07, 2010, 12:29:17 PM
Article from National Football Foundation and College Hall of Fame, Inc.


Colleges Continue to Add Football Teams and Scholarships


http://www.footballfoundation.org/news.php?id=2196
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 07, 2010, 09:23:58 PM

So the rumblings have been around for a while about the major DI schools bolting the NCAA for their own super division.  Now we're seeing the Big-10 expanding and the PAC-10/Big-12 working on coordinating schedules.  The KU athletic director last week publicly admitted the ideal situation would be for the top 64 teams to form four super-conferences and leave the NCAA.  Obviously, they take the majority of the TV money with them.

Is there an idea about how DIII would continue to function if it had to fully fund its championships?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 08, 2010, 01:45:44 PM
I imagine we would have to adopt some kind of NAIA-style model in that event.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: doolittledog on May 08, 2010, 11:12:58 PM
Just the football teams leave the NCAA? 

There are almost 350 D1 basketball schools and if there would then only be 64 D1 basketball schools that would make March Madness a bit meaningless. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 09, 2010, 10:51:48 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on May 07, 2010, 09:23:58 PM

So the rumblings have been around for a while about the major DI schools bolting the NCAA for their own super division.  Now we're seeing the Big-10 expanding and the PAC-10/Big-12 working on coordinating schedules.  The KU athletic director last week publicly admitted the ideal situation would be for the top 64 teams to form four super-conferences and leave the NCAA.  Obviously, they take the majority of the TV money with them.

Is there an idea about how DIII would continue to function if it had to fully fund its championships?

Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 08, 2010, 01:45:44 PM
I imagine we would have to adopt some kind of NAIA-style model in that event.

And, does that budget cut shrink the number of Pool C bids and re-adjust the access ratio for all at-large bids back off the 1:6.5 ratio we see in major sports?

We had 3 Pool C bids in baseball back in 2005.  We have 15 this year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 09, 2010, 09:44:21 PM
Quote from: doolittledog on May 08, 2010, 11:12:58 PM
Just the football teams leave the NCAA? 

There are almost 350 D1 basketball schools and if there would then only be 64 D1 basketball schools that would make March Madness a bit meaningless. 

Exactly.  Right now the power conferences and this the big schools get all the football money for themselves.  They're looking for a scenario where they can add the basketball money as well.  This would certainly do it.  Taking the top 64 teams out of March Madness would end the big money the NCAA gets for their championship.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on May 13, 2010, 02:20:23 PM
From the NCAA

Report reveals inconsistencies in DIII financial aid policies

http://ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/reports_reveal_inconsistencies_in_diii_financial_aid_policies_05_13_10_ncaa_news

Actual Report

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/81d60c0042745cebb7f6ff02716233c8/Division+III+Financial+Aid+Reporting+Program+Findings+and+Review+Results+May+3+2010.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=81d60c0042745cebb7f6ff02716233c8
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gargantuan Gull on May 14, 2010, 08:40:36 PM
What have the penalties been for schools that have major infractions?

How about secondary infractions? 

Do they list the schools that have past violations anywhere and what the penalties were?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on May 14, 2010, 10:19:00 PM
Good questions.  I would like to see the names of the schools that have been found to have the more serious violations.  They're nowhere to be seen in either of those links.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 26, 2010, 12:35:20 PM
AQ seen as right way of growing rowing (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+i/aq+seen+as+right+way+of+growing+rowing_05_26_10_ncaa_news)

Excellent discussion of using the AQ to grow participation in a sport in D-1.

We have had similar discussions about the "best 16 teams", but one cannot deny that using the AQ to grow sports at the conference level does have its benefits.
Title: What schools are applying for D3
Post by: radiodavel on May 28, 2010, 03:54:38 PM
D2 is presently accepting membership applications for new members...

D3 deadline was May 15...NCAA will not release until June, wondering if any of you know of schools looking to go D3...

THE SENIOR REPORTS
www.theseniorreports.com/naiad2.htm
Title: Re: What schools are applying for D3
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 28, 2010, 10:16:01 PM
As per your link in The Senior Reports, I have not heard of any schools seeking exploratory status.

Doane NE, Hastings NE and Concordia NE seemed to have pulled their names off the D-III table. William Jewell MO went D-II.  Berry Ga and Covenant GA went D-III.  I am waiting to see whether Berry joins the SCAC or the GSAC.

PSU-Abington is in the NEAC.  I would have expected a few more PSU system campuses to join Abington and Harrisburg in the NEAC.

UNO is still looking for a D-III home. I am sure they will working the coffee breaks at the ASC Presidents Meeting next month.  Centenary LA is on board with the ASC with its time line to be determined by the NCAA.
Title: Re: What schools are applying for D3
Post by: RFMichigan on June 02, 2010, 03:25:03 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on May 28, 2010, 10:16:01 PM


Doane NE, Hastings NE and Concordia NE seemed to have pulled their names off the D-III table. William Jewell MO went D-II.  Berry Ga and Covenant GA went D-III.  I am waiting to see whether Berry joins the SCAC or the GSAC.



Do you have any ideas/thoughts why the Nebraska schools would seek exploratory status (or whatever the formal title is called) and then decide not to go dIII and stay NAIA? Why might they have looked into dIII in the first place?
I'm curious especially about Concordia.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on June 09, 2010, 02:12:54 PM
As rumored, DePauw has accepted an invitation to join the NCAC.

http://www.depauw.edu/ath/news.asp?ID=25449
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Tacttm1 on June 09, 2010, 02:50:25 PM
With the DePauw shift, some people have asked me if that would create an opening for the University of New Orleans.  I replied that I still don't believe UNO to be a good fit with the SCAC based on size and location.  Am I right, not-so-right or all wet??
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on June 09, 2010, 03:15:05 PM
I don't know that part of the country as well as the Midwest area but from an outsider looking in I would agree that New Orleans is not a good fit in the SCAC. With Centenary coming in also the situation that would make the most sense is New Orleans to the American Southwest and Centernary to the SCAC. Centenary fits in much better with the SCAC than New Orleans.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on June 10, 2010, 09:55:39 AM
Article from the NCAA

DIII  Takes Its Message to the Media

http://ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/diii+takes+its+message+to+the+media_06_08_10_ncaa_news
Title: DePauw Joins North Coast Athletic Conference
Post by: radiodavel on June 10, 2010, 03:15:27 PM
THE SENIOR REPORTS - DePauw Joins North Coast Athletic Conference

www.theseniorreports.com/naiad2.htm

looks like a good move for DePauw
Title: Re: DePauw Joins North Coast Athletic Conference
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 10, 2010, 05:26:09 PM
Quote from: radiodavel on June 10, 2010, 03:15:27 PM
THE SENIOR REPORTS - DePauw Joins North Coast Athletic Conference

www.theseniorreports.com/naiad2.htm

looks like a good move for DePauw

Front page story

http://www.d3hoops.com/

Notables --D3football.com (http://www.d3football.com/notables/2010/06/09/1854/depauw-to-join-scac-in-2012.html)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 10, 2010, 08:00:50 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on June 09, 2010, 03:15:05 PM
I don't know that part of the country as well as the Midwest area but from an outsider looking in I would agree that New Orleans is not a good fit in the SCAC. With Centenary coming in also the situation that would make the most sense is New Orleans to the American Southwest and Centernary to the SCAC. Centenary fits in much better with the SCAC than New Orleans.

Centenary has already applied for and been accepted into the ASC.   I believe they made overtures to the SCAC but were rebuffed due to the conference being as large as it wanted to be.  No doubt things might be different if they were talking today. 

UNO is a terrible fit for the SCAC and even with DePauw's departure would not be a suitable candidate.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 10, 2010, 08:42:10 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 10, 2010, 08:00:50 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on June 09, 2010, 03:15:05 PM
I don't know that part of the country as well as the Midwest area but from an outsider looking in I would agree that New Orleans is not a good fit in the SCAC. With Centenary coming in also the situation that would make the most sense is New Orleans to the American Southwest and Centernary to the SCAC. Centenary fits in much better with the SCAC than New Orleans.

Centenary has already applied for and been accepted into the ASC.   I believe they made overtures to the SCAC but were rebuffed due to the conference being as large as it wanted to be.  No doubt things might be different if they were talking today.  

UNO is a terrible fit for the SCAC and even with DePauw's departure would not be a suitable candidate.
What I fear will happen is that Centenary will spend its provisional years in the ASC, possibly from the 2011-12 academic year thru 2014-15.

During those years, new Centenary President David Rowe will effectively lead the institution back to what most D-III purists can accept as a private liberal arts institution, especially in the eyes of Centenary's academic peers, the Associated Colleges of the South (http://www.colleges.org/).  Sometime around 2015 or 2016, Centenary will be re-assessed favorably by the presidents of the SCAC. (Wouldn't that be called interlocking directorates in the business world?)

Then, Centenary will be extended an invitation to take their football team and athletic program to the SCAC, and another team will have left the ASC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 11, 2010, 08:44:38 AM
That's a long time for the SCAC to hold a slot for Centenary.  I think they might take a Berry (esp. if they say they'll start FB) or maybe UDallas to get back to where they are today in most sports.

And, of course, if Hendrix would get off the pot and get their football program going, that would eliminate the short-term need to look for another FB school to take DPU's place.   They are just finishing up a $100M fundraiser (after increasing the original $70M goal) - maybe once that's done they'll get the football program back on track.  I sent Dr. Cloyd an e-mail on the topic earlier this week - unlikely I'll get a response (and he's out right now), but you never know.  Maybe Pat can work his magic there.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 11, 2010, 09:30:02 AM
It's probably time for an official follow-up with Hendrix. It's a really busy summer with the transition to Presto but I'll see what I can do.
Title: What schools are applying for D3
Post by: radiodavel on June 12, 2010, 10:17:27 PM
There must have been some schools who applied for D3,,,NCAA refuses to tell me how many...they insist that I wait until the process has been completed...

Title: Re: What schools are applying for D3
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 13, 2010, 07:56:06 PM
From a blog by NAIA guru Jason Dannelly (http://www.collegefanz.com/people/jasondannelly/blog/2009/02/17/the-future-of-the-naia-part-2-of-3),

Quote...

The changing of conferences and divisions has created a ripple effect in the NAIA. Virginia-Wise joining the Mid South reduced the number of members of the Appalachian Athletic Conference for the upcoming year. Covenant also appears to be leaving the AAC for NCAA DIII and King College will be moving to NCAA DII. Montreat College is unsure of what its future in the conference might be. The school located in Montreat, N.C. is a school stuck between a rock and a hard place as they try to determine what is best for their institution overall. The school recently announced they will move away from awarding athletic scholarships and are contemplating a move to NCAA DIII. The potential moves in the conference could take the AAC from ten this last season to six in the near future.
...

Distances from Montreat to ... (http://www.montreat.edu/Home/AboutMontreat/CampusDirections/tabid/124/Default.aspx)

Three miles off I-40 and 15 miles from Asheville NC, they are between the GSAC and the USA South.

We can look for their name on the exploratory list this summer.
Title: Re: What schools are applying for D3
Post by: dodgerwv on June 17, 2010, 10:47:16 PM
Ralph,
That's an old posting on the NAIA/VSN site.  Montreat announced that they would stay in the NAIA last fall.  Kind of a shame.  That would be a great fit in the Great South.

http://www.montreat.edu/Home/tabid/36/ctl/Details/mid/3615/ItemID/858/Default.aspx
Title: College of Idaho eying membership in NCAA DIII NW Conference
Post by: radiodavel on June 21, 2010, 06:38:55 PM
THE SENIOR REPORTS - College of Idaho eying membership in NCAA DIII NW Conference

www.theseniorreports.com/naiad2.htm

plus 2 schools from the Portland area...
Title: Re: College of Idaho eying membership in NCAA DIII NW Conference
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 21, 2010, 08:55:48 PM
Quote from: radiodavel on June 21, 2010, 06:38:55 PM
THE SENIOR REPORTS - College of Idaho eying membership in NCAA DIII NW Conference

www.theseniorreports.com/naiad2.htm

plus 2 schools from the Portland area...
Sorry, but I am having trouble finding the specific articles about College of Idaho (Albertson College) and the 2 Portland area schools on your blog/website.
Title: Re: College of Idaho eying membership in NCAA DIII NW Conference
Post by: Gray Fox on June 21, 2010, 09:33:27 PM
Ralph,
Here it is:

  http://www.kboi2.com/sports/college/96776569.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 21, 2010, 09:59:08 PM
College of Idaho and Northwest Nazarene (http://www.kboi2.com/sports/college/96776569.html) expressing interest in the the Northwest Conference.

Thanks to Gray Fox for the valid hyperlink.

Pull quote...
Quote...
Steve Flegel, sports information director at Whitworth College in Spokane and for the Northwest Conference said the College of Idaho is not alone in looking to join the conference. Two Portland-area schools, including one of the top NAIA athletic institutions in the country, have inquired about membership as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 23, 2010, 02:57:09 PM

My brother goes to Northwest Nazarene and I've got a few connections there.

They moved from NAIA to NCAA D2 not long ago.  However, with no real inside knowledge, the size and goals of the school really fit better in d3.  They like being able to give scholarships, but the level of play required for competition in their current conference doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think they'd fit well in the NWC, although I'm unsure as to whether or not they'd be willing to add football.  I doubt they'll pull that trigger, which could be a dealbreaker for the NWC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 24, 2010, 10:38:51 AM
D-III Champoinships Committee is debating the defintion of Conference.

Link (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/diii+championships+panel+floats+change+to+core+definition_06_24_10_ncaa_news)

Not finding favor is a proposal to permit conferences with 14 members (e.g., the 15-member ASC) to have 2 AQ's.  The MAC is a special case that needs to be considered.

They are also dealing with questions on:

the number of teams to be regionally ranked in each sport.

standardization of the names of the regions.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 26, 2010, 10:01:27 AM
Tacttm1 has posted this link to the NCAA announcement of the new members.  The progress thru the provisional process is also announced in the same article.  Here is the link

Quote from: Tacttm1 on June 25, 2010, 11:02:28 AM
Here is an easy link, as well:

New members, Class of 2010-11 (http://ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/diii+membership+committee+approves+five+new+members_06_25_10_ncaa_news)


Summarizing the status of teams going thru the pipeline...

New members 2010-11;

School                                             Conference
Lancaster Bible College  (Lancaster, PA)Independent
Lyndon State College  (Lyndonville, VT)NAC
North Central University (Minneapolis, MN)  Independnent
Penn State Harrisburg (Middletown, PA)NEAC
St Vincent College  (Latrobe, PA)Pres AC



These schools have been promoted in the provisional process to the respective years.

Fourth Year (Full members in 2011-12)

Franciscan University Steubenville (Steubenville, OH)   AMCC
Geneva College (Beaver Falls, PAPres AC
St Joseph's College (Brooklyn NY)Independent
Birmingham-Southern College (Birmingham AL)SCAC



From Year 2 to Year 3 (Full members in 2012-13)  Games against 3rd and 4th year provisional schools count in regional rankings.

Spalding University (Louisville, KY)  SLIAC
SUNY Cobleskill  (Cobleskill, NY)NEAC



Fron Year 1 to Year 2 (Full members in 2013-14)

Berry College (Mount Berry GA)Independent
Covenant College (Lookout Mountain, GA)    GSAC
Penn State Abington  (Abington, PA)NEAC



Pull quote about the new schools in the provisional pipeline...

QuoteThe committee also considered applications from several schools asking to begin the Division III membership process and made recommendations that the Management Council will consider at its July 19-20 meeting.
Title: U OF DALLAS BECOMES AFFILIATE MEMBER OF THE SLIAC
Post by: radiodavel on July 12, 2010, 11:15:31 AM
UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS BECOMES AFFILIATE MEMBER OF THE ST. LOUIS INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC CONFERENCE

being an independent can be a lot of work...

We have created a new page for D3 changes...
www.theseniorreports.com/naiadiv3.htm
Title: Re: U OF DALLAS BECOMES AFFILIATE MEMBER OF THE SLIAC
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 12, 2010, 01:20:16 PM
Quote from: radiodavel on July 12, 2010, 11:15:31 AM
UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS BECOMES AFFILIATE MEMBER OF THE ST. LOUIS INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC CONFERENCE

being an independent can be a lot of work...

We have created a new page for D3 changes...
www.theseniorreports.com/naiadiv3.htm

This seems to be the real mover behind this transaction.

SLIAC press release (http://www.sliac.org/headlines/2009-10/dallas_070910.htm)

Quote"The addition of Dallas will enhance the championship experience for the student-athletes in all three sports, increasing the size of the Championship field in each sport to offer a greater event for the participants.  Further, it will solidify our [SLIAC's] automatic qualifier in men's golf.  We are also pleased to offer the student-athletes from UD the opportunity to compete for a Conference Championship, and the awards and recognitions that come with that," Wolper continued.

UDallas is no longer needed in the NEAC as an affiliate in Men's Golf to maintain the AQ.  That also moves UDallas golf from a Fall Sport in the NEAC to a Spring Sport in the SLIAC.

UDallas women ran a strong second in Cross Country in 2009.

SUNY Cobleskill dominated in the NEAC Men's Cross Country UDallas scored 98 points in 3rd place behind SUNYIT with 80 points for 2nd.
Title: Re: U OF DALLAS BECOMES AFFILIATE MEMBER OF THE SLIAC
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 12, 2010, 08:47:11 PM
Quote from: radiodavel on July 12, 2010, 11:15:31 AM
www.theseniorreports.com/naiadiv3.htm


There is no NAIA Division III.
Title: Re: U OF DALLAS BECOMES AFFILIATE MEMBER OF THE SLIAC
Post by: Just Bill on July 13, 2010, 10:23:08 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 12, 2010, 08:47:11 PM
Quote from: radiodavel on July 12, 2010, 11:15:31 AM
www.theseniorreports.com/naiadiv3.htm


There is no NAIA Division III.

I assume that link means NAIA and NCAA Division III.
Title: Re: U OF DALLAS BECOMES AFFILIATE MEMBER OF THE SLIAC
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 13, 2010, 02:06:18 PM
Not sure -- his message said "We have created a new page for D3 changes..."
Title: Re: U OF DALLAS BECOMES AFFILIATE MEMBER OF THE SLIAC
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 13, 2010, 03:20:18 PM
This topic seems to fit the subject matter that we have discussed in the the "Future of Division III" topic.  I will merge it into that one.   :)
Title: Re: U OF DALLAS BECOMES AFFILIATE MEMBER OF THE SLIAC
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 13, 2010, 09:44:18 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 12, 2010, 01:20:16 PM
...

This seems to be the real mover behind this transaction.

SLIAC press release (http://www.sliac.org/headlines/2009-10/dallas_070910.htm)

Quote"The addition of Dallas will enhance the championship experience for the student-athletes in all three sports, increasing the size of the Championship field in each sport to offer a greater event for the participants.  Further, it will solidify our [SLIAC's] automatic qualifier in men's golf.  We are also pleased to offer the student-athletes from UD the opportunity to compete for a Conference Championship, and the awards and recognitions that come with that," Wolper continued.

UDallas is no longer needed in the NEAC as an affiliate in Men's Golf to maintain the AQ.  That also moves UDallas golf from a Fall Sport in the NEAC to a Spring Sport in the SLIAC.

UDallas women ran a strong second in Cross Country in 2009.

SUNY Cobleskill dominated in the NEAC Men's Cross Country UDallas scored 98 points in 3rd place behind SUNYIT with 80 points for 2nd.

The question that remains for the SLIAC is whether the SLIAC wants to invite UDallas Men and Women to compete in Track & Field.

http://www.sliac.org/track.htm

The programs are comparable.

http://www.udallas.edu/athletics/mensports/track
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 20, 2010, 04:46:33 PM
Regis to NECC (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/july+latest+news/division+i+gains+two+new+members%2C+loses+two+others+to+division+iii)

QuoteRegis College (Massachusetts) on Monday accepted an invitation to become the 10th member of the New England Collegiate Conference at the close of the 2010-11 academic year.

Regis will be the first full-time member the NECC has added since the league's inception in 2008. Current members are Bay Path College, Becker College, Daniel Webster College, Elms College, Lesley University, Mitchell College, Newbury College, Southern Vermont College and Wheelock College.

Regis, presently a member of the Commonwealth Coast Conference, sponsors seven men's sports and 10 for women. The Pride will compete in all NECC sports except baseball.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 21, 2010, 11:32:28 AM
Single Core Conferences (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/july+latest+news/division+iii+roundup%2C+single+core+conference+endorsement)

Any prospect of the ASC or a similar conference from "MAC-i-fying" into an umbrella conference and sub-conferences just saw some hopes dim.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on July 21, 2010, 12:05:14 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 21, 2010, 11:32:28 AM
Single Core Conferences (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/july+latest+news/division+iii+roundup%2C+single+core+conference+endorsement)

Any prospect of the ASC or a similar conference from "MAC-i-fying" into an umbrella conference and sub-conferences just saw some hopes dim.

At one time, the MAC had 50  or so members. Try "MAC-i-fying" that many today.  :P
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 21, 2010, 03:52:24 PM
NCAA says that other than New Orleans and Centenary, no schools are joining the Division III membership pipeline this upcoming year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: BUBeaverFan on July 22, 2010, 09:22:40 AM
NCAA DII seems to be getting a majority of the action these days.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on July 27, 2010, 03:18:05 AM
Penn State Harrisburg accepted into D3:

http://harrisburg.psu.edu/athletics/story/ncaa-accepts-penn-state-harrisburg-member-division-iii-2044
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on July 27, 2010, 08:11:35 AM
Quote from: roocru on July 27, 2010, 03:18:05 AM
Penn State Harrisburg accepted into D3:

http://harrisburg.psu.edu/athletics/story/ncaa-accepts-penn-state-harrisburg-member-division-iii-2044

They need to call themselves something besides the "Nittany Lions" - LOL!

They competed in the NEAC last year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on July 27, 2010, 12:33:09 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 27, 2010, 08:11:35 AM
Quote from: roocru on July 27, 2010, 03:18:05 AM
Penn State Harrisburg accepted into D3:

http://harrisburg.psu.edu/athletics/story/ncaa-accepts-penn-state-harrisburg-member-division-iii-2044

They need to call themselves something besides the "Nittany Lions" - LOL!

They competed in the NEAC last year.

You should look at the Penn State University Athletic Conference in the USCAA. They are all the Nittany Lions. That has to be boring going through the conference schedule and see the same colors every night.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 02, 2010, 12:39:43 AM
Infractions committee ruling

Chatham (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2010/infractions/division+iii+committee+on+infractions+issues+decision+on+chatham+university?pageDesign=old+news+releases+template) ... Women's Ice Hockey
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on August 02, 2010, 04:24:42 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on June 09, 2010, 02:12:54 PM
As rumored, DePauw has accepted an invitation to join the NCAC.

http://www.depauw.edu/ath/news.asp?ID=25449

And they are now the number 10 party school in the country.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100802/US.Party.Schools/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 02, 2010, 04:51:22 PM
... and DePauw's also the only D3 school named to the Princeton Review's annual lampshade-as-a-hat, upchucking-on-the-campus-sidewalks Top Ten.

Nice.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on August 03, 2010, 01:04:16 AM
QuoteThe ranking is based on voluntary e-mail surveys of 122,000 students at more than 370 colleges across the country.
Rigorous. ::)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 03, 2010, 04:53:42 PM

I know some of those "party school" lists used to take money from the various institutions to leave them off the list.  I wonder if they're looking to tap the vast resources of d3 now by adding those schools into the mix.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 03, 2010, 04:56:22 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 03, 2010, 04:53:42 PM

I know some of those "party school" lists used to take money from the various institutions to leave them off the list. 
Hush money? :-X :-X
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on August 03, 2010, 04:57:04 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on August 03, 2010, 04:56:22 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 03, 2010, 04:53:42 PM

I know some of those "party school" lists used to take money from the various institutions to leave them off the list. 
Hush money? :-X :-X

Lush money?  8-)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 09, 2010, 03:50:29 PM
GLIAC scheduling change reflects push for equity (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2010+news+stories/August+latest+news/GLIAC+scheduling+change+reflects+push+for+equity)

Here is an interesting topic for off-season debate, especially since we have a various conferences scheduling games in different methods.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 09, 2010, 04:42:09 PM
I always have had that thought in the back of my mind.  I wonder if TV will have an effect on any outcome.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: fantastic50 on August 10, 2010, 08:37:58 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 09, 2010, 03:50:29 PM
GLIAC scheduling change reflects push for equity (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2010+news+stories/August+latest+news/GLIAC+scheduling+change+reflects+push+for+equity)

Here is an interesting topic for off-season debate, especially since we have a various conferences scheduling games in different methods.

I once saw a high school conference play some evening basketball doubleheaders with the boys' games first, for the same reason.  Instead of the girls having a decent crowd for the second half of their game (due to fans arriving for the boys' game), they played in a nearly empty gym, as very few fans stuck around for the girls' game.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 10, 2010, 01:47:33 PM
In the past decade, back when Hardin-Simmons Cowgirls were at national strength and drawing 1500-2000 fans per game, the fans would exit after the Cowgirls played and go home, instead of staying for the men's basketball game.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on August 10, 2010, 07:52:22 PM
For a number of years the UAA has had women's games Fri 6pm, men 8pm  And Sunday men at noon, women 2pm.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on August 11, 2010, 01:11:56 PM
The WIAC flips the order of the games every season (or maybe every other season).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: BUBeaverFan on August 11, 2010, 02:44:53 PM
It looks like some teams in the HCAC are moving toward Saturday doubleheaders and the occasional Wednesday night double header based on travel distance.  Bluffton has 10 of its 18 conference games as double headers.  Trend?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on August 11, 2010, 03:33:15 PM
If this is the first time the HCAC has had doubleheaders then they are the last to jump on board.  Nearly every other D-III conference (especially in the Midwest) has had doubleheaders for some time.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: BUBeaverFan on August 11, 2010, 04:17:58 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on August 11, 2010, 03:33:15 PM
If this is the first time the HCAC has had doubleheaders then they are the last to jump on board.  Nearly every other D-III conference (especially in the Midwest) has had doubleheaders for some time.

Not the first time, it just seems to be becoming more the rule than the exception.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 11, 2010, 07:28:33 PM
The CCIW didn't mandate women/men doubleheaders for league games until last season -- and even then it was for Saturdays only. The women still play on Tuesdays, the men on Wednesdays.

AFAIK, the only CCIW school that attempted a men-play-first doubleheader on a Saturday last season was Wheaton. On February 6 Wheaton hosted a doubleheader against North Park. The 5 pm opener between the Wheaton and NPU men drew 1,632 fans. The 7:30 pm nightcap between the Wheaton and NPU women drew 311 fans.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on August 11, 2010, 07:36:50 PM
I don't believe that the OAC ever plays doubleheaders.  The general practice, which may indeed be the rule, is that when Team A's men are playing at Team B, the B-women are at A, and the tip times are the same.  (That is, e.g., when Muskingum's men play at Wilmington, Wilma's women are at Musky.)

Doubleheaders in the NCAC do take place from time to time (usually involving Earlham, which likes to have their men's and women's teams travel together), but they are infrequent and often involve visiting teams from two different schools.  When they do take place, I've never noticed a trend of which gender plays first.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on August 12, 2010, 02:13:28 AM
I gave this topic a days wait before commenting before I went off on this topic. If you pay attention to how I have been following d3, I primarily am a fan of the women in the UAA and NESCAC for the most part and secondarily follow the men's game in the UAA and NESCAC as well.

I am completely and utterly dismayed at any conferences approach to the double header. The UAA has done it correctly. For a night game, put the womens first so that they dont feel like complete trash when all of the fans leave after the mens game and they have no fans for their game. The most amazing thing that I have witnessed in the UAA is the home court advantage on Friday nights for the women when all of the fans come early for the mens game during the "4th quarter" or last 10 minutes of the game. I know the NESCAC was switching the mens to the first game and the womens to second, and that is a huge mistake that from what I have heard was not discussed amongst the coaches and definitely not asked about from the players. For day games in the UAA, the fan migration to the parking lot was not usually as obvious because the "hardcore" fans were there to support both teams anyway.

The conferences (and/or NCAA if it is a major equal opportunity issue) should ask the players before making such a big mistake with a shift towards men-first double headers for night games.

(Sidenote, I know that out of the schools with both mens and womens programs, there exceptions to the rule where a women's draws more than the men, but that is a minority.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: old ends on September 07, 2010, 04:02:46 PM
New NCAA page for DIV III
click here: http://www.ncaa.org/divisionIII (http://www.ncaa.org/divisionIII)

enjoy
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: John Gleich on September 07, 2010, 10:27:15 PM
Quote from: fantastic50 on August 10, 2010, 08:37:58 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 09, 2010, 03:50:29 PM
GLIAC scheduling change reflects push for equity (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2010+news+stories/August+latest+news/GLIAC+scheduling+change+reflects+push+for+equity)

Here is an interesting topic for off-season debate, especially since we have a various conferences scheduling games in different methods.

I once saw a high school conference play some evening basketball doubleheaders with the boys' games first, for the same reason.  Instead of the girls having a decent crowd for the second half of their game (due to fans arriving for the boys' game), they played in a nearly empty gym, as very few fans stuck around for the girls' game.

Interesting... I only had one (redshirt) season at a GLIAC school and then played in the WIAC for 4 more... I never had an opportunity to play at MTU before leaving but the routine was set... we changed formats between my second and third years at Point.

What I can say is that, at the very least, swapping games first and second can really screw with your routine, especially for away games.  We played second my third year and first my second year... it makes you change up the routine from year to year.  I don't have any stats on how the away team has done in each situation... but when you have to accommodate the the opposite gender's teams it can make for some... interesting situations.

I'm not going to make excuses and say that it cost us games (hard to back that up when the facts don't necessarily back it up.... of the 8 combined games we lost my junior and senior year, 6 were on the road, but only two of those were double-headers, with us playing second, the other 4 were mid-week games).

Stevens Point has a very unique situation as well with Quandt being available for the men and Berg available for the women while the other game is going on... I know of no other university in the country with this situation, though they may have an auxiliary gym (not that any were every utilized for getting loose or anything like that for the participants of the second game while I was there).

SP has another unique feature of their setup... they charge admission separately for each game whereas all of the other schools playing in the same gym have one ticket for both games (not sure if the prices are raised for doubleheaders or if there's a buy-two-get-a-discount at Point).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on September 08, 2010, 02:52:24 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on September 07, 2010, 10:27:15 PM
Stevens Point has a very unique situation as well with Quandt being available for the men and Berg available for the women while the other game is going on... I know of no other university in the country with this situation, though they may have an auxiliary gym (not that any were every utilized for getting loose or anything like that for the participants of the second game while I was there).

SP has another unique feature of their setup... they charge admission separately for each game whereas all of the other schools playing in the same gym have one ticket for both games (not sure if the prices are raised for doubleheaders or if there's a buy-two-get-a-discount at Point).
Two top-of-my-head counterexamples, just for the sake of posting something.
1) It's just an auxiliary floor, but Denison has a full-sized basketball gym in the same building as Livingston Gym, and I have seen the Big Red men warming up there while the women were playing.
2) Wittenberg has charged admission for women, then cleared the gym and charged for the men (with an intervening, and free, JV men's game) on at least one occasion (worth noting that the opponent for both genders was Wooster, making it not really your run-of-the-mill Saturday for Wittenberg). 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on September 08, 2010, 03:16:36 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on September 08, 2010, 02:52:24 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on September 07, 2010, 10:27:15 PM
Stevens Point has a very unique situation as well with Quandt being available for the men and Berg available for the women while the other game is going on... I know of no other university in the country with this situation, though they may have an auxiliary gym (not that any were every utilized for getting loose or anything like that for the participants of the second game while I was there).

SP has another unique feature of their setup... they charge admission separately for each game whereas all of the other schools playing in the same gym have one ticket for both games (not sure if the prices are raised for doubleheaders or if there's a buy-two-get-a-discount at Point).
Two top-of-my-head counterexamples, just for the sake of posting something.
1) It's just an auxiliary floor, but Denison has a full-sized basketball gym in the same building as Livingston Gym, and I have seen the Big Red men warming up there while the women were playing.
2) Wittenberg has charged admission for women, then cleared the gym and charged for the men (with an intervening, and free, JV men's game) on at least one occasion (worth noting that the opponent for both genders was Wooster, making it not really your run-of-the-mill Saturday for Wittenberg). 

North Park did the same thing last year on a Saturday in which NPU hosted a women's game directly followed by a men's game. I would guess that UWSP actually has plenty of company when it comes to the two-games, two-admissions policy.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on September 08, 2010, 03:45:38 PM
You do still get a "doubleheader discount" if you attend both games at Stevens Point.  If you bring your ticket from Game 1 to the door at Game 2 you pay a discounted admission.  At least that's what it used to be. I doubt it's changed.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: John Gleich on September 08, 2010, 05:42:17 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on September 08, 2010, 02:52:24 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on September 07, 2010, 10:27:15 PM
Stevens Point has a very unique situation as well with Quandt being available for the men and Berg available for the women while the other game is going on... I know of no other university in the country with this situation, though they may have an auxiliary gym (not that any were every utilized for getting loose or anything like that for the participants of the second game while I was there).

SP has another unique feature of their setup... they charge admission separately for each game whereas all of the other schools playing in the same gym have one ticket for both games (not sure if the prices are raised for doubleheaders or if there's a buy-two-get-a-discount at Point).
Two top-of-my-head counterexamples, just for the sake of posting something.
1) It's just an auxiliary floor, but Denison has a full-sized basketball gym in the same building as Livingston Gym, and I have seen the Big Red men warming up there while the women were playing.
2) Wittenberg has charged admission for women, then cleared the gym and charged for the men (with an intervening, and free, JV men's game) on at least one occasion (worth noting that the opponent for both genders was Wooster, making it not really your run-of-the-mill Saturday for Wittenberg). 

Yeah, there are other WIAC schools with aux gyms too (Oshkosh comes to mind... and actually, maybe we DID warm up there one time, come to think of it) but for whatever reason, they weren't utilzed.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on September 08, 2010, 03:16:36 PM
North Park did the same thing last year on a Saturday in which NPU hosted a women's game directly followed by a men's game. I would guess that UWSP actually has plenty of company when it comes to the two-games, two-admissions policy.

Did they clear the gym in between games?

I know they don't (or at least didn't when I still played/lived in Point) for other WIAC DH's).

I know that they typically do that for NCAA quads but I wonder how much extra revenue they get for the additional hastle it is to shuffle people out and back in.

The Crackerbox isn't a large venue (so I hear... I missed my chances last season and need to do it this year!) but some others it could be quite cramped quarters in the lobbies. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on September 08, 2010, 07:07:18 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on September 08, 2010, 05:42:17 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on September 08, 2010, 03:16:36 PM
North Park did the same thing last year on a Saturday in which NPU hosted a women's game directly followed by a men's game. I would guess that UWSP actually has plenty of company when it comes to the two-games, two-admissions policy.

Did they clear the gym in between games?

Yes.

Quote from: PointSpecial on September 08, 2010, 05:42:17 PM
I know they don't (or at least didn't when I still played/lived in Point) for other WIAC DH's).

I know that they typically do that for NCAA quads but I wonder how much extra revenue they get for the additional hastle it is to shuffle people out and back in.

It depends upon the school. Some schools charge separate admissions and clear out the gym between games, others don't. The NCAA leaves it up to the host. Like you, in most cases I'm not convinced that there's really a whole lot of extra income to be gained by all the bother.

Quote from: PointSpecial on September 08, 2010, 05:42:17 PM
The Crackerbox isn't a large venue (so I hear... I missed my chances last season and need to do it this year!) but some others it could be quite cramped quarters in the lobbies.

The women's home games at North Park are usually played at 2 pm on Saturdays with the men's games held much later at 7:30 pm, so it's typically not an issue. And it didn't seem to cause much of a problem on the occasion that NPU held the back-to-back games that involved clearing the gym in the interim. There's very limited overlap between the fans who turn out for the women's games and the fans who turn out for the men's games -- and the women's games don't tend to draw very well, anyway.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on September 09, 2010, 09:41:02 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on September 08, 2010, 05:42:17 PM
I know they don't (or at least didn't when I still played/lived in Point) for other WIAC DH's).

I know that they typically do that for NCAA quads but I wonder how much extra revenue they get for the additional hastle it is to shuffle people out and back in.

QuoteIt depends upon the school. Some schools charge separate admissions and clear out the gym between games, others don't. The NCAA leaves it up to the host. Like you, in most cases I'm not convinced that there's really a whole lot of extra income to be gained by all the bother.

I always thought the clearing gyms technique was designed to get more home fans in the gym, not for income. If you play two games under one admission, then the home team only gets 50% of the seats because the fans of the three "other" teams are taking up spots. If you make two admissions, then there is only one "other" team so your fans can grab more tickets.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on September 09, 2010, 11:20:50 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on September 09, 2010, 09:41:02 AM
I always thought the clearing gyms technique was designed to get more home fans in the gym, not for income.

I think it's a both/and, not an either/or. More home fans = more fans, period.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 09, 2010, 11:56:46 PM
Membership proposals (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+iii/membership+proposals+set+for+2011+convention_09_08_10_ncaa_news)

QuoteThe NCAA News

Division III will consider six legislative proposals that have gained proper sponsorship from member conferences for the 2011 Convention.

The six membership-sponsored proposals, as they will appear in the Second Publication of Proposed Legislation, are (with originating conference and co-sponsors):

   * No. 1  Amateurism – Preferential Treatment – Exception – Designation of Fundraising Money. Intent: To specify that it would be permissible for an institution to allocate money earned via fundraising by a student-athlete specifically for that student-athlete up to the actual and necessary expenses for the specific item (for example, transportation, uniforms). Any unearned money would go to the institution, athletics department or team. Further, to establish a definition of earned and unearned money. Effective date: August 1, 2011. (Colonial States Athletic Conference, Little East Conference, Middle Atlantic Conferences, New Jersey Athletic Conference and Presidents' Athletic Conference)
   * No. 2  Eligibility – Outside Competition – Exceptions – Triathlon. Intent: To permit student-athletes to compete in triathlons without affecting their sport eligibility (in cross country, track and field, or swimming and diving) while still adhering to amateurism standards. Effective date: Immediate. (Empire 8, Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference and North Eastern Athletic Conference)
   * No. 3  Playing and Practice Seasons – Athletically Related Activities – Certified Strength and Conditioning Personnel Monitoring and Conducting Workouts. Intent: To permit certified strength and conditioning personnel to conduct voluntary workouts for all student-athletes. Effective date: August 1, 2011. (Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, Great Northeast Athletic Conference, Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, Little East Conference and Upper Midwest Athletic Conference)
   * No. 5  Postseason Events – Division III Championships – Men's Volleyball. Intent: To establish a NCAA Division III Men's Volleyball Championship. Effective date: August 1, 2011. (City University of New York Athletic Conference and Great Northeast Athletic Conference)
   * No. 6  Executive Regulations – Administration of NCAA Championships – Squad Limits – Bench Size Limits – Sports Other Than Football. Intent: To permit institutions in sports other than football to determine how many student-athletes from their current active rosters they desire to dress, participate in warm-ups and be in the bench area for an NCAA championship contest while still adhering to the maximum number of student-athletes eligible to compete in a particular championship as determined by that sports championship policy and while maintaining the current per diem policies in all sports. Effective date: Immediate. (Empire 8, Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference and Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association)
   * No. 7  Executive Regulations – Administration of NCAA Championships – Squad Limits – Bench Size Limits – All Sports. Intent: To permit institutions in all applicable sports to determine how many student-athletes from their current active rosters they desire to dress, participate in warm-ups and be in the bench area for an NCAA championship contest while still adhering to the maximum number of student-athletes eligible to compete in a particular contest as determined by that sports championship policy and maintaining the current per diem policies in all sports. Further, to establish a maximum of 100 student-athletes who may be in the bench area during football championship contests. Effective date: Immediate. (Empire 8 and Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association)

The Division III legislative process allows a conference or 10 institutions that submitted a Convention proposal by July 15 to continue to seek co-sponsorship from an additional conference or 10 more institutions (for an institution-based proposal, 20 institutions must agree to sponsor) until September 1.

Proposal Nos. 1 and 3 were submitted by the July 15 deadline with proper co-sponsorship. The other four proposals gained co-sponsorship after July 15.

The Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference submitted but subsequently withdrew a proposal to reduce the maximum contests or dates of competition in all Division III championship sports that have 11 or more contests or dates of competition.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Piobark on September 13, 2010, 02:52:19 PM
For proposal #3, I think this is a really good idea.

Given that athletes are going to be in the weight room, seems to me that having someone there who knows how to build a proper program and how to perform the specific elements (lifts) is in the best interests of the student's long term health.

The alternative is that student athletes are creating their own workouts, perhaps lifting improperly, and risking injury.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on September 13, 2010, 03:17:32 PM
I like #6/#7. If you have been part of the team all year you should be able to suit up, warm up and be on the bench for the championship game. This fits in well with the Division III philosophy of giving many oppurtunities for student-athlete participation. This isn't putting undue pressure on the NCAA's budget. And it is up to the school to determine whether to bring the student-athletes along or not. The coaches will have to be careful on who is actually on the championship roster and who is not but it isn't overly difficult as long as you pay attention to what is going on.
Title: Houghton College Considers Application for NCAA D-III Membership
Post by: radiodavel on September 16, 2010, 06:43:55 PM
THE SENIOR REPORTS - Houghton College Considers Application for NCAA D-III Membership
www.theseniorreports.com/naiadiv3.htm

look for one more NY school to announce a change
Title: Re: Houghton College Considers Application for NCAA D-III Membership
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 16, 2010, 09:52:47 PM
Houghton College in southwestern New York.

Press Release (http://www.houghton.edu/news/archive.php?p=1151)  (Italics added)

Quote...

Application For NCAA D-III Membership
The addition of these two programs will assist Houghton College in meeting the standards of sports offerings for NCAA D-III membership – a move that is in the exploratory stages of consideration. The determining factors for Houghton deciding to apply for NCAA D-III membership include the college's ability to identify a conference that fits it academically, geographically and aligns with the college's athletic emphasis on the development of character and leadership. Alignment with a well-respected NCAA D-III conference within the college's geographic area would provide Houghton student-athletes with schedules that minimize travel and missed class time.

"The addition of baseball and softball at Houghton not only provide more alternatives for both athletes and spectators but also enhance the contribution of athletics to our overall educational environment," remarks Shirley A. Mullen, President of Houghton College. "Athletics contributes to Houghton's educational goals of developing the whole person, pursuing excellence, cultivating self discipline and team building, creating and sustaining community, and stewarding one's gifts and abilities to serve others." Mullen states that, "Adding these sports is part of our preparation to seriously explore a move from NAIA to NCAA D-III assuming we are able to find a conference in DIII that shares our commitment to an athletic program embedded within a larger educational philosophy of academic rigor and character development."

No football.  They offer Field Hockey.  Adding Baseball and Softball.


NEAC, AMCC or Empire 8

Which one will it be?
Title: Houghton College Considers Application for NCAA D-III Membership
Post by: radiodavel on September 17, 2010, 11:01:59 AM
Houghton is a quality school, will make a good addition to any conference.  They are presently members of the NAIA's AMC conference which basically has imploded, many of the members were just accepted into D2 the past several years.  The AMC went from over 20 schools as members, to closing their doors probably next year... info on the AMC is at - www.theseniorreports.com/naiad2.htm

Don't be surprised if you see another announcement from another NY - AMC member as well about a change fore the future.  The AMC is having a conference meeting this next week and I'm sure some of this will come out during the meetings.

I look for more NAIA members to consider D3, because of the changes taking place in the D2 membership process.
Title: Re: Houghton College Considers Application for NCAA D-III Membership
Post by: BUBeaverFan on September 17, 2010, 11:53:03 AM
I continue to be amazed that the Mid Central College Conference members (NAIA primarily Indiana Colleges) maintain their NAIA affiliation as the dominoes continue to fall around them.  I think they could be a quality NCAA DIII conference.  Mount Vernon Nazarene has applied for membership in the Mid Central Conference because of the American Mideast Conference and larger NAIA implosion in Ohio.   Lourdes, Northwestern Ohio, Wilberforce, Cincinnati Christian, Rio Grande, Shawnee State and Mount Vernon will be the remaining NAIA Members in Ohio.  I assume Lourdes will go the Wolverine-Hoosier route (like Northwestern Ohio) leaving Wilberfore on an island unto themselves.  Maybe the Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference could entice Taylor University of the Mid Central as a 11 Member (10th Football) if Taylor would become interested in the DIII route.
Title: Re: Houghton College Considers Application for NCAA D-III Membership
Post by: Gregory Sager on September 17, 2010, 01:35:58 PM
Quote from: radiodavel on September 17, 2010, 11:01:59 AMDon't be surprised if you see another announcement from another NY - AMC member as well about a change fore the future.  The AMC is having a conference meeting this next week and I'm sure some of this will come out during the meetings.

Logically, the next domino to fall should be Roberts Wesleyan, Houghton's long-time rival and fellow member of the imploding AMC. As Houghton goes, Roberts Wesleyan goes. RWC, which is located in the Rochester suburbs, already has the requisite twelve varsity programs, and it has participated in what's now called the Wendy's College Classic since 1966-67 -- a fact that's significant because it's the only NAIA school in a tournament that has otherwise consisted entirely of D3 schools since D3 inaugurated men's basketball competition in 1975-75.

The AMC, with its preponderance of Ohio and Pennsylvania schools, has never seemed like a logical home for either Houghton or Roberts Wesleyan. Given that D3 schools are thick on the ground in upstate New York -- private as well as public -- and the fact that the size, mission, and profile of the two schools are very D3ish, it makes perfect sense for them to move over to D3. In fact, I wonder why they didn't do so years ago.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on September 17, 2010, 01:54:46 PM
DIII committee offers alternate to bench proposal

Click here (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2010+news+stories/September+latest+news/DIII+committee+offers+alternate+to+bench+proposal)



Modified for formatting purposes... Thanks, roocru, for the post. +1!  Ralph
Title: Re: Houghton College Considers Application for NCAA D-III Membership
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 19, 2010, 01:30:05 PM
My question for the E8 fans is do they think that Roberts Wesleyan and Houghton have the same mission and vision as the E8 schools.
Title: Re: Houghton College Considers Application for NCAA D-III Membership
Post by: Knightstalker on September 20, 2010, 10:55:46 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 16, 2010, 09:52:47 PM
Houghton College in southwestern New York.

Press Release (http://www.houghton.edu/news/archive.php?p=1151)  (Italics added)

Quote...

Application For NCAA D-III Membership
The addition of these two programs will assist Houghton College in meeting the standards of sports offerings for NCAA D-III membership – a move that is in the exploratory stages of consideration. The determining factors for Houghton deciding to apply for NCAA D-III membership include the college's ability to identify a conference that fits it academically, geographically and aligns with the college's athletic emphasis on the development of character and leadership. Alignment with a well-respected NCAA D-III conference within the college's geographic area would provide Houghton student-athletes with schedules that minimize travel and missed class time.

"The addition of baseball and softball at Houghton not only provide more alternatives for both athletes and spectators but also enhance the contribution of athletics to our overall educational environment," remarks Shirley A. Mullen, President of Houghton College. "Athletics contributes to Houghton's educational goals of developing the whole person, pursuing excellence, cultivating self discipline and team building, creating and sustaining community, and stewarding one's gifts and abilities to serve others." Mullen states that, "Adding these sports is part of our preparation to seriously explore a move from NAIA to NCAA D-III assuming we are able to find a conference in DIII that shares our commitment to an athletic program embedded within a larger educational philosophy of academic rigor and character development."

No football.  They offer Field Hockey.  Adding Baseball and Softball.


NEAC, AMCC or Empire 8

Which one will it be?

Houghton also has Cross Country and Track and Field for both men and women.  My nephew is the new Head Coach there.  I will try to find out something from him about this.  He is hard to track down right now during the season.
Title: Re: Houghton College Considers Application for NCAA D-III Membership
Post by: Knightstalker on September 20, 2010, 10:58:52 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on September 17, 2010, 01:35:58 PM
Quote from: radiodavel on September 17, 2010, 11:01:59 AMDon't be surprised if you see another announcement from another NY - AMC member as well about a change fore the future.  The AMC is having a conference meeting this next week and I'm sure some of this will come out during the meetings.

Logically, the next domino to fall should be Roberts Wesleyan, Houghton's long-time rival and fellow member of the imploding AMC. As Houghton goes, Roberts Wesleyan goes. RWC, which is located in the Rochester suburbs, already has the requisite twelve varsity programs, and it has participated in what's now called the Wendy's College Classic since 1966-67 -- a fact that's significant because it's the only NAIA school in a tournament that has otherwise consisted entirely of D3 schools since D3 inaugurated men's basketball competition in 1975-75.

The AMC, with its preponderance of Ohio and Pennsylvania schools, has never seemed like a logical home for either Houghton or Roberts Wesleyan. Given that D3 schools are thick on the ground in upstate New York -- private as well as public -- and the fact that the size, mission, and profile of the two schools are very D3ish, it makes perfect sense for them to move over to D3. In fact, I wonder why they didn't do so years ago.

Houghton liked being in the NAIA.  The coaches liked the compliance rules which are not nearly as complex as the NCAA rules.  The rules are also easier on giving scholarships to foreign athletes.  Houghton had many Kenyans on the Xcountry and track teams while my nephew was running for them.  They were also able to get most of the athletes through school without having to go into debt with loans.  They would use a mix of scholarships and financial aid for as many students as possible.
Title: Roberts Wesleyan
Post by: radiodavel on September 21, 2010, 02:18:56 PM
Roberts Wesleyan has decided not to go D3...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on September 22, 2010, 03:24:05 PM
University of Dallas to join SCAC!!

http://www.scacsports.com/news/dallas_joins_scac (http://www.scacsports.com/news/dallas_joins_scac)
Title: U of Dallas joins Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference
Post by: radiodavel on September 23, 2010, 08:03:19 AM
U of Dallas joins Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference...

interesting move, a lot of travel in this conf...good school, wonder how the D3 Independents will do after they leave that group that they helped to form,,,it was a good program for D3 independents..numbers are down as well...

www.theseniorreports.com/naiadiv3.htm
Title: Re: U of Dallas joins Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 23, 2010, 10:48:38 AM
Quote from: radiodavel on September 23, 2010, 08:03:19 AM
U of Dallas joins Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference...

interesting move, a lot of travel in this conf...good school, wonder how the D3 Independents will do after they leave that group that they helped to form,,,it was a good program for D3 independents..numbers are down as well...

www.theseniorreports.com/naiadiv3.htm
This was the lead story on D3hoops.com yesterday.

http://www.d3hoops.com/

You basically "cut-and-pasted" the SCAC press release.

We have had similar discussions about the UDallas on the Future of D-III boards for 10 years, but especially since DePauw announced its move to the NCAC.

UDallas has been preparing for this over the last decade...

adding Phi Beta Kappa chapter,
adding some strategic sports like women's lacrosse,
filling the "Colorado College slot" as the Austin College travel partner in the Women's Soccer schedule.  (CC's women's soccer is D-1.)
Title: Re: U of Dallas joins Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference
Post by: Just Bill on September 23, 2010, 10:49:05 AM
That was on the front page of D3Hoops and reported in this thread yesterday afternoon. Thanks for catching up.  ;)
Title: U of Dallas joins Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference
Post by: radiodavel on September 23, 2010, 01:44:04 PM
Ralph and Bill...did not copy and paste my posting....wanted to hear comments on what folks thought about it, but no one had started a thread...a lot of folks got the release on the announcement...

I worked with U Dallas when I was the Commissioner of the USCAA...they had just left their conf and were looking for ways to give their teams post-season tournaments.  They hosted the first-ever championships of the USCAA as all of the sports competed for the titles...

to say they have been heading this way for 10 years, is not what I have seen from them.  There concerns were about travel time and missing classes.  This conf is tough to do that...they just joined the SLIAC for several smaller sports, so that will change with all of this.  This conf could see more changes, especially with the economy the way it is...DePauw being just one to do it so far...

(UD AD) Dick Stockbrine was the leader to form the Assoc of D3 Independents and has served as President of the group.  He is a big reason they received bids, you need someone like him to make this work, he was committed to the process.  I would hate to see it die, not saying it will, but they are losing a guy who had a passion for it...

Title: Re: U of Dallas joins Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference
Post by: Pat Coleman on September 23, 2010, 03:09:39 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 23, 2010, 10:48:38 AM
Quote from: radiodavel on September 23, 2010, 08:03:19 AM
U of Dallas joins Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference...

interesting move, a lot of travel in this conf...good school, wonder how the D3 Independents will do after they leave that group that they helped to form,,,it was a good program for D3 independents..numbers are down as well...

www.theseniorreports.com/naiadiv3.htm
This was the lead story on D3hoops.com yesterday.

http://www.d3hoops.com/

You basically "cut-and-pasted" the SCAC press release.

And on the other hand, we added a little context for our readership.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Jonny Utah on September 24, 2010, 08:12:12 AM
Saw this article about Title 9 in the Boston Globe today:

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/articles/2010/09/24/college_dropouts_increase/?page=3
Title: Re: U of Dallas joins Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 24, 2010, 09:48:39 AM
Quote from: radiodavel on September 23, 2010, 01:44:04 PM
Ralph and Bill...did not copy and paste my posting....wanted to hear comments on what folks thought about it, but no one had started a thread...a lot of folks got the release on the announcement...

I worked with U Dallas when I was the Commissioner of the USCAA...they had just left their conf and were looking for ways to give their teams post-season tournaments.  They hosted the first-ever championships of the USCAA as all of the sports competed for the titles...

to say they have been heading this way for 10 years, is not what I have seen from them.  There concerns were about travel time and missing classes.  This conf is tough to do that...they just joined the SLIAC for several smaller sports, so that will change with all of this.  This conf could see more changes, especially with the economy the way it is...DePauw being just one to do it so far...

(UD AD) Dick Stockbrine was the leader to form the Assoc of D3 Independents and has served as President of the group.  He is a big reason they received bids, you need someone like him to make this work, he was committed to the process.  I would hate to see it die, not saying it will, but they are losing a guy who had a passion for it...
I think that the key individual in all this has been AD Dick Strockbine.  He has stayed the course with his vision, thru the failed attempt to add football, working thru the USCAA to provide alternatives, his work in the Assoc of DIII independents.  (The A D3I has been a catalyst for other independent programs as they have gotten their programs up to "conference" speed.)  I thought that his affiliation arrangements with the NEAC and the SLIAC served valuable purposes in the flux that can be D-III.

The move to the SCAC always was the understood goal.  UD had a different focus from several of the ASC schools.  UD rarely played some of the ASC schools once UD left the ASC.  UD saw itself as more akin to Trinity than to Mississippi College.  When the initial bid to the SCAC was not forthcoming by 2005, and the football attempt had failed, and the outreach to the Great South AC did not result in a conference membership, the school stayed the course.  The NEAC move saved the AQ for that conference as it transformed from an initial haven for 12 D-III independents as they moved into conference style orientations.  Some of those initial NEAC members landed in high quality conferences, especially during the Mid-Atlantic Shuffle.
Title: U of Dallas joins Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference
Post by: radiodavel on September 24, 2010, 10:36:35 AM
UD was a strong member of the USCAA...that first year they gave us what we needed to move forward with the championships...

he needs to get way more credit than he is receiving, very out of the box thinking...

D3 independents owe him a lot...

frequent flyer miles in D3...will still travel a lot, in this time of a hard economy youhave to give them credit...
Title: Northwest Nazarene Considering Athletics Division Change (from D2 to D3)
Post by: radiodavel on September 27, 2010, 10:34:49 PM
Northwest Nazarene Considering Athletics Division Change (from D2 to D3)
www.theseniorreports.com/naiadiv3.htm

causing quite a stir at the school, would hurt the present D2 conf they are in... school is doing or will do a study on the move, so no talk of what would happen with the move...

seeing all kinds of changes in college sports the past 2 years, I'm afraid it is only getting started..
Title: Re: Northwest Nazarene Considering Athletics Division Change (from D2 to D3)
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 27, 2010, 10:50:21 PM
This only makes sense if Northern Nazarene University (http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13220654) in Nampa ID has an acceptable mission and vision that is consistent with the members of the Northwest Conference, and can serve as a travel partner for College of Idaho (Albertson College), which is 10 miles away.

Otherwise, they will be more isolated than Chapman or UC Santa Cruz
Title: Re: Northwest Nazarene Considering Athletics Division Change (from D2 to D3)
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on September 28, 2010, 10:34:28 AM

This is an inevitable move for NNU.  They wanted to get out of NAIA and d2 seemed like the best way for them to transition (keeping scholarship athletes, etc), but they're really more suited as a d3 school.

The NWC would be a great fit.  My only question was whether the NWC would require them to add football to join.  I don't think NNU is inclined to go that direction.
Title: Re: Northwest Nazarene Considering Athletics Division Change (from D2 to D3)
Post by: Pat Coleman on September 28, 2010, 04:09:35 PM
The NWC gained two football programs, with Pacific this year and George Fox upcoming. Probably lessens the need for them to take a school with football. Plus, if they get College of Idaho to come over as well, that's a school more inclined to add football, I'd say.
Title: Re: Northwest Nazarene Considering Athletics Division Change (from D2 to D3)
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on September 28, 2010, 05:16:47 PM

From what I hear, the College of Idaho is looking to add football and NNU has been told they won't have to.

The news that's come out recently is due to a leak - someone said something they shouldn't have.  The school had to scramble a bit to get on top of things.  They're (administration) is still very much neutral and taking seriously the investigation into a move.

Personally, I think going to d3 is a great fit for them.  I've thought this was coming since they moved from NAIA to d2.  It's a small school with a strong and growing academic reputation in a conference with schools with very different profiles.

I'm excited to see this happening (and not just because I have a brother attending school there).
Title: Shenanadoah moving to the ODAC?
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 28, 2010, 06:31:38 PM
The Winchester Star (subscription required) has an article today about a possible move by Shenandoah to the ODAC.

Whether the ODAC has lifted its moratorium on new members is not certain, and whether it is football only, remains to be seen.

Pull quote from the article...

QuoteODAC commissioner Brad Bankston said Monday that SU is under "active membership consideration" by the Salem-based league and that a decision on its status would be made Wednesday.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on September 28, 2010, 08:57:08 PM
Yeah, either ODAC or MAC makes sense. I understand that Shenandoah's new affiliation will be just one conference.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on September 29, 2010, 08:43:38 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on September 28, 2010, 08:57:08 PM
Yeah, either ODAC or MAC makes sense. I understand that Shenandoah's new affiliation will be just one conference.

Several years ago, there was some talk about Shenandoah joining the MAC ....
Title: Re: Northwest Nazarene Considering Athletics Division Change (from D2 to D3)
Post by: BUBeaverFan on September 29, 2010, 10:00:43 AM
The Albertson Center on the College of Idaho campus is one of the most beautiful facilities I have ever seen.  The wooden arches in the gym are amazing and the Caldwell Rodeo is nearby. NNU hosted the NAIA Men's basketball championships for a few years in the 90's and had great community support.  If you have never been to the Boise, Nampa, Caldwell areas it is worth the trip.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 29, 2010, 06:51:27 PM
Shenandoah to the ODAC...

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/09/29/conference-shuffle-drifts-south
Title: Re: Northwest Nazarene Considering Athletics Division Change (from D2 to D3)
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 01, 2010, 07:34:46 PM

NNU is going to stay d2.  They haven't been there long enough to really know if it's the right place for them.  They need to be sure of that before they consider other options.  I wouldn't be surprised if they consider the move again some time in the future.

This was supposed to be an internal investigation into the possibility - they've decided to stay; no one should have ever known.  It's a shame things got leaked and people got worked up.

Time's not right for them.
Title: Northwest Nazarene Considering Athletics Division Change (from D2 to D3)
Post by: radiodavel on October 02, 2010, 07:18:56 PM
they released a statement yesterday that they would remain D2...
Title: Re: Northwest Nazarene Considering Athletics Division Change (from D2 to D3)
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 03, 2010, 08:57:06 AM
Quote from: radiodavel on October 02, 2010, 07:18:56 PM
they released a statement yesterday that they would remain D2...
Link to Press Release (http://www.nnu.edu/offices/marketing/news-article/article/division-ii-for-nnu/)

Title: TCCC Situation
Post by: tcccfriend on October 08, 2010, 11:19:01 AM
  While the fast movement of schools changing conferences has heightened the awareness that college athletics is in reality a big business, the general consensus is that such activity is just taking place at the Division I level. After all, at the Division III level, the focus is on education; athletics serve as a means to enhance the experience of the student while in college.

           This is not to say that athletics does not hold a place of importance in the culture of the school; certainly, those employed by the institution in the athletic department want to create the best environment for their potential success. More often, this success is measured in wins and losses rather than long-term results.

[This seems to me to be material that may have been published elsewhere. We can't allow that publisher's copyright to be violated here. If this is your original work, please email me. - Pat Coleman]
Title: Misericordia University to add football
Post by: radiodavel on October 19, 2010, 08:02:31 PM
Misericordia University to add football

another college adding football to help student count...interesting...

www.theseniorreports.com/naiadiv3.htm
Title: Re: Misericordia University to add football
Post by: smedindy on October 19, 2010, 08:18:46 PM
It makes total sense. Football is one thing that adds male students, and even if they don't play for four years, they don't melt like you'd think.
Title: Re: Misericordia University to add football
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 19, 2010, 10:10:42 PM
Yes, and yesterday's news on D3football.com, by the way.
http://www.d3football.com/notables/2010/10/miseri-adds-football

Guess it's one thing to post links on your site to stuff we don't have but this was front page news already and it's being discussed elsewhere.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 20, 2010, 08:15:42 PM
The number of "one-school boards" that were appearing were beginning to "clutter" (IMHO) the board.  They seldom generated more than a half-page of comments.

Since the original intent of this message board was to track the progress of the D-IV movement back in the mid-decade, I believe that merging those small boards that are featuring a simple one-time move, probably fitting well into this topic, will clean up the board to some degree.

I have not change Subject lines so one can follow any posts that might be separated in time.

The U New Orleans matter generated much more news from numerous sites and contributors.  I have not moved it at this time.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 27, 2010, 09:06:23 PM
Chapman (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/october/chapman+poised+for+sciac+membership) applies to the SCIAC.

Link (http://www.d3baseball.com/notables/2010/10/27/7654/panthers-look-to-join-sciac.html) to the D3baseball.com front page story.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on October 28, 2010, 12:24:10 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 27, 2010, 09:06:23 PM
Chapman (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/october/chapman+poised+for+sciac+membership) applies to the SCIAC.

What makes them believe they will be accepted this time after being kept at arm's length for so long?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on October 28, 2010, 09:35:08 PM
The SCIAC will not take anyone if it feels that Cal Tech is going to be threatened.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: John Gleich on October 29, 2010, 10:12:43 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on October 28, 2010, 12:24:10 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 27, 2010, 09:06:23 PM
Chapman (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/october/chapman+poised+for+sciac+membership) applies to the SCIAC.

What makes them believe they will be accepted this time after being kept at arm's length for so long?

Have they ever formally applied before, though?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 29, 2010, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on October 28, 2010, 09:35:08 PM
The SCIAC will not take anyone if it feels that Cal Tech is going to be threatened.

What does that even mean? Is Chapman going to beat up Caltech or take its lunch money?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on October 29, 2010, 11:47:36 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on October 29, 2010, 10:12:43 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on October 28, 2010, 12:24:10 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 27, 2010, 09:06:23 PM
Chapman (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/october/chapman+poised+for+sciac+membership) applies to the SCIAC.

What makes them believe they will be accepted this time after being kept at arm's length for so long?

Have they ever formally applied before, though?

I believe they have, although I don't know the exact history.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on October 29, 2010, 12:19:00 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 29, 2010, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on October 28, 2010, 09:35:08 PM
The SCIAC will not take anyone if it feels that Cal Tech is going to be threatened.

What does that even mean? Is Chapman going to beat up Caltech or take its lunch money?

Slide rules at 30 paces...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: CrashDavisD3 on October 29, 2010, 12:30:14 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 29, 2010, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on October 28, 2010, 09:35:08 PM
The SCIAC will not take anyone if it feels that Cal Tech is going to be threatened.

What does that even mean? Is Chapman going to beat up Caltech or take its lunch money?
Dont try to tell me that CalTech dont already get beat up by the other SCIAC teams.

http://gocaltech.com/sports/bsb/2009-10/schedule

http://gocaltech.com/sports/mbkb/2009-10/schedule
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 29, 2010, 12:47:09 PM
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on October 29, 2010, 12:30:14 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 29, 2010, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on October 28, 2010, 09:35:08 PM
The SCIAC will not take anyone if it feels that Cal Tech is going to be threatened.

What does that even mean? Is Chapman going to beat up Caltech or take its lunch money?
Dont try to tell me that CalTech dont already get beat up by the other SCIAC teams.

http://gocaltech.com/sports/bsb/2009-10/schedule

http://gocaltech.com/sports/mbkb/2009-10/schedule


Boy, and I thought that the Caltech men's basketball team had it rough. Those baseball scores are positively frightening in their lopsidedness.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: John Gleich on October 29, 2010, 02:52:52 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 29, 2010, 12:47:09 PM
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on October 29, 2010, 12:30:14 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 29, 2010, 11:36:55 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on October 28, 2010, 09:35:08 PM
The SCIAC will not take anyone if it feels that Cal Tech is going to be threatened.

What does that even mean? Is Chapman going to beat up Caltech or take its lunch money?
Dont try to tell me that CalTech dont already get beat up by the other SCIAC teams.

http://gocaltech.com/sports/bsb/2009-10/schedule

http://gocaltech.com/sports/mbkb/2009-10/schedule


Boy, and I thought that the Caltech men's basketball team had it rough. Those baseball scores are positively frightening in their lopsidedness.

I'm most impressed that they finished the year... In game 2, they lost 25-2 and had NINE errors.  They were down 15-0 after 2.

I feel like I have some gumption and stick-to-itiveness... but goodness gracious...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on October 29, 2010, 08:42:37 PM
Yeah, but in Game 1 they were AHEAD 7-5 in the 8th. Ya gotta believe.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on October 30, 2010, 12:15:04 AM
However, I think Cal Tech is the epitome of playing the game for the sake of playing. Which should be commended. When you are 0-10 with an 18.98 ERA AS A SENIOR and you still want the ball - that says something.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 30, 2010, 12:45:43 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 30, 2010, 12:15:04 AM
However, I think Cal Tech is the epitome of playing the game for the sake of playing. Which should be commended. When you are 0-10 with an 18.98 ERA AS A SENIOR and you still want the ball - that says something.

Amen.  They are in some ways the epitome of D3.

Unfortunately, for the yahoos like some at UNO who think D3 is 'glorified intramurals', they are also the epitome of D3. :P

Alas, I have no easy solution for showing what a great athletic 'product' we have, yet showing that we are truly student athletes.  I guess we'll just have to win that battle one fan (parent, sibling, friend, other) at a time. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: John Gleich on October 30, 2010, 09:06:25 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on October 29, 2010, 08:42:37 PM
Yeah, but in Game 1 they were AHEAD 7-5 in the 8th. Ya gotta believe.

So, they were on the verge of an historic year (for the good) when the bottom of the 8th happened and it was all downhill from there...?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: CrashDavisD3 on November 01, 2010, 05:16:20 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 27, 2010, 09:06:23 PM
Chapman (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/october/chapman+poised+for+sciac+membership) applies to the SCIAC.

Link (http://www.d3baseball.com/notables/2010/10/27/7654/panthers-look-to-join-sciac.html) to the D3baseball.com front page story.

Link to more information on this story
http://www.thepantheronline.com/sports/chapman-reapplies-to-join-sciac-1.1737828
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on November 01, 2010, 01:40:12 PM
DIII presidents take positions on Convention legislation

Link (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/october/diii+presidents+take+positions+on+convention+legislation)



Edited for formatting sake.  Thanks for the link. Ralph Turner
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on November 02, 2010, 01:40:18 PM
DIII Presidents Council elects leaders for next term

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/october/diii+presidents+council+elects+leaders+for+next+term (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+stories/october/diii+presidents+council+elects+leaders+for+next+term)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 01, 2010, 01:31:18 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2010, 02:17:14 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 27, 2009, 02:05:07 AM
The NCAA carried this story of affiliation to gain Pool A status in Men's Golf.

Three Landmark golf programs link up with Empire 8 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/three+landmark+golf+programs+link+up+with+empire+8_08_25_09_ncaa_news)

Quote... Landmark members Moravian, Scranton and Susquehanna will first compete alongside the five Empire 8 schools sponsoring the sport in a championship tournament next month and again in April 2010.

The new associate members join Elmira, Nazareth, St. John Fisher (which finished third at the 2008 Division III Men's Golf Championships led by individual medalist Scott Harris Jr.), Stevens Institute of Technology and Utica in competing for Empire 8 honors.    ...

Fellow Landmark member Merchant Marine affiliated with the Liberty League in 2009-10 to give 7 members.  The LL should earn the Golf AQ in 2011-12.

A July 1st press release from the New England Collegiate Conference announced the affiliation of Babson (NEWMAC) with the NECC.

Quote...They [Babson] will join NECC members Becker College, Daniel Webster College, Elms College, Mitchell College and Newbury College, along with fellow NEWMAC member Springfield College who is also an associate member in men's golf. ...

That still leaves NEWMAC member MIT as an independent (Pool B) school sponsoring golf.

In Men's Golf Central Region, UMAC schools that sponsor golf include Bethany Lutheran, Crown, Martin Luther, UMinn-Morris, Northwestern and Presentation, plus 4th-year provisional (and affiliate member) North Central MN.  That gives 7 schools.  If the UMAC wanted to invite Finlandia to affiliate in Men's Golf beginning with the 2009-10 school year, then the UMAC could have an AQ by the 2012 tourney. Otherwise, when North Central becomes a full member of D-III, the UMAC should get its Pool A bid two years later.

The 2009 tourney had 27 Pool A bids, 7 Pool B bids and 2 Pool C bids.  With 8 schools moving from Pool B to Pool A under the Empire 8 banner, 7 schools moving to Pool A in the Liberty League, 7 schools moving to Pool A under the NECC banner and the potential for 7 more schools to move to Pool A in the UMAC, that would change the Men's Golf allocation to 31 Pool A's 3 Pool B's and 2 Pool C bids.

Along those lines, GSAC members Huntingdon, LaGrange and Piedmont are in Pool B, but the USA South is in danger of losing Shenandoah, which would put the USA South Pool A bid in jeopardy.  (GSAC/USA South merger discussions were recently discontinued.)

We may see more affiliations in Men's Golf to gain access to Pool A.

The Capital AC has these 5 schools sponsoring Men's Golf:  Hood, Marymount, Stevenson, Wesley and York PA.

The Commonwealth Coast Conference has 6 schools that sponsor men's golf:  Anna Marie, Endicott, New England, Nichols, Wentworth Tech and Western New England.  (Men's golf is not a sponsored sport by the CCC.)

The MASCAC has 4 schools that sponsor men's golf:  Mass College of the Liberal Arts, Salem State, Westfield and Worcester State.

UAA schools (5) that sponsor golf include Brandeis, Carnegie-Mellon, Emory, NYU and Rochester.

That leaves the other (7) independents (2008-09 Handbook):

Northeast Region:  UMaine-Presque Isle, SUNY-Potsdam.

Mid-Atlantic Region:  SUNY-Oswego.  (Rutgers-Camden has affiliated with the NEAC.)

Central Region: Neb. Wesleyan, UW-Eau Claire and UW-Stout

Southeast and Great Lakes Regions:  (See GSAC, UAA  and Capital AC.)

West Region: Chapman. (University of Dallas is in an affiliation arrangement with the NEAC.))


New Jersey City and William Paterson (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2009/division+iii/two+new+jersey+schools+add+mens+golf_08_14_09_ncaa_news) join Rutgers-Camden in sponsoring men's golf.

2009 Men's Golf Handbook (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/golf/2009/3_mgolf_handbook.pdf)

Pool B is going away...




Disclaimer:  The Handbook does not break down membership by conference, so I may be missing some unusual affiliations.

Men's Golf Update...

27 Pool A, 7 Pool B 3, Pool C.

2010 Handbook (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/golf/2010/10_3_m_golf.pdf)

2011 Men's Golf Handbook (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/golf/2011/11_3_m_golf.pdf)

28 Pool A bids, 6 Pool B bids, and 6 Pool C bids.  The bid allocation ratio is 1:7 for Men's Golf.

There are 54 Pool B schools for 2010-11 for Men's Golf.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on December 09, 2010, 05:09:02 PM
Four nominated to join DIII Presidents Council

From the NCAA

Four nominated for Presidents Council (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2010+news+stories/December/Four+nominated+to+join+DIII+Presidents+Council)



Thanks for finding the link.  +1!

Modified for formatting   ;)
Title: Re: Houghton College Considers Application for NCAA D-III Membership
Post by: Knightstalker on December 16, 2010, 10:27:24 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on September 20, 2010, 10:55:46 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 16, 2010, 09:52:47 PM
Houghton College in southwestern New York.

Press Release (http://www.houghton.edu/news/archive.php?p=1151)  (Italics added)

Quote...

Application For NCAA D-III Membership
The addition of these two programs will assist Houghton College in meeting the standards of sports offerings for NCAA D-III membership – a move that is in the exploratory stages of consideration. The determining factors for Houghton deciding to apply for NCAA D-III membership include the college's ability to identify a conference that fits it academically, geographically and aligns with the college's athletic emphasis on the development of character and leadership. Alignment with a well-respected NCAA D-III conference within the college's geographic area would provide Houghton student-athletes with schedules that minimize travel and missed class time.

"The addition of baseball and softball at Houghton not only provide more alternatives for both athletes and spectators but also enhance the contribution of athletics to our overall educational environment," remarks Shirley A. Mullen, President of Houghton College. "Athletics contributes to Houghton's educational goals of developing the whole person, pursuing excellence, cultivating self discipline and team building, creating and sustaining community, and stewarding one's gifts and abilities to serve others." Mullen states that, "Adding these sports is part of our preparation to seriously explore a move from NAIA to NCAA D-III assuming we are able to find a conference in DIII that shares our commitment to an athletic program embedded within a larger educational philosophy of academic rigor and character development."

No football.  They offer Field Hockey.  Adding Baseball and Softball.


NEAC, AMCC or Empire 8

Which one will it be?

Houghton also has Cross Country and Track and Field for both men and women.  My nephew is the new Head Coach there.  I will try to find out something from him about this.  He is hard to track down right now during the season.

Houghton is definitely exploring D-III.  The program that will benefit immediately is their mens soccer program.  The others will benefit in the long run.  They want to step up their competition.  They are considering 2 conferences, one is the Empire 8 the other is the NESCAC and they are having serious conversations with both.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 16, 2010, 10:50:07 PM
Even though I'm a retired college professor, I confess I had never even heard of Houghton College.  A quick Google search failed to turn up any reason that NESCAC would be interested for either academic or geographic reasons.  Could you elaborate?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: CrashDavisD3 on December 16, 2010, 11:22:29 PM
NCAA DIII Membership Committee Link
http://goo.gl/fCyIc
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 16, 2010, 11:55:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 16, 2010, 10:50:07 PM
Even though I'm a retired college professor, I confess I had never even heard of Houghton College.  A quick Google search failed to turn up any reason that NESCAC would be interested for either academic or geographic reasons.  Could you elaborate?

NAIA school in upstate New York.  Very high academic standards on a par with NESCAC schools, affiliated with either the Methodist or Wesleyan church I believe, not 100% sure though.  I consider my source an extremely reliable one in this matter.

http://www.houghton.edu/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 17, 2010, 01:06:10 AM
Quote from: Knightstalker on December 16, 2010, 11:55:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 16, 2010, 10:50:07 PM
Even though I'm a retired college professor, I confess I had never even heard of Houghton College.  A quick Google search failed to turn up any reason that NESCAC would be interested for either academic or geographic reasons.  Could you elaborate?

NAIA school in upstate New York.  Very high academic standards on a par with NESCAC schools, affiliated with either the Methodist or Wesleyan church I believe, not 100% sure though.  I consider my source an extremely reliable one in this matter.

http://www.houghton.edu/

Upstate seems to mean anything outside of NYC!  Houghton is about as far western NY as you can get.  I would think the nearest NESCAC school must be 300+ miles. ;)

And their academics seem pretty pedestrian.  Not bad, but for a 'Christian' school, they ain't Wheaton (IL).  And they certainly don't seem to be NESCAC.  I just can't see it.

And this is NOT playing the 'academics card'.  My entire career was teaching at a college whose 'academics' (in terms of SATs or ACTs) would make Houghton look good. ;)  I'm very definitely a guy who thinks there need to be schools where ANYONE who wants to try to get a college education has a chance to try.  It just doesn't seem like Houghton is a fit for the NESCAC either geographically or academically.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on December 17, 2010, 02:41:42 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 17, 2010, 01:06:10 AM
Quote from: Knightstalker on December 16, 2010, 11:55:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 16, 2010, 10:50:07 PM
Even though I'm a retired college professor, I confess I had never even heard of Houghton College.  A quick Google search failed to turn up any reason that NESCAC would be interested for either academic or geographic reasons.  Could you elaborate?

NAIA school in upstate New York.  Very high academic standards on a par with NESCAC schools, affiliated with either the Methodist or Wesleyan church I believe, not 100% sure though.  I consider my source an extremely reliable one in this matter.

http://www.houghton.edu/

Upstate seems to mean anything outside of NYC!  Houghton is about as far western NY as you can get.  I would think the nearest NESCAC school must be 300+ miles. ;)

And their academics seem pretty pedestrian.  Not bad, but for a 'Christian' school, they ain't Wheaton (IL).  And they certainly don't seem to be NESCAC.  I just can't see it.

And this is NOT playing the 'academics card'.  My entire career was teaching at a college whose 'academics' (in terms of SATs or ACTs) would make Houghton look good. ;)  I'm very definitely a guy who thinks there need to be schools where ANYONE who wants to try to get a college education has a chance to try.  It just doesn't seem like Houghton is a fit for the NESCAC either geographically or academically.

I agree... not quite NESCAC compatible academically.

Class of 2013 Profile: Academics (http://www.houghton.edu/admission/overview/profile.htm)

Average SAT: Critical Reading (600), Math (578), Writing (582)
Middle 50% SAT: 1050-1280 (on Critical Reading and Math sections)
Average ACT: 26
Average high school GPA: 3.56
36% or ranked students graduated in the top 10% of their high school class
16 high school valedictorians
76 students will participate in a Houghton First-Year Honors Program

Colby Class of 2014 - Admitted Student Profile (http://www.colby.edu/admissions_cs/about/index.cfm?clear=y)

700/700/700   median SAT critical reading/math/writing
31   median ACT composite
62   percent reporting top 5% rank in class
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 17, 2010, 09:55:13 AM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on December 17, 2010, 02:41:42 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 17, 2010, 01:06:10 AM
Quote from: Knightstalker on December 16, 2010, 11:55:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 16, 2010, 10:50:07 PM
Even though I'm a retired college professor, I confess I had never even heard of Houghton College.  A quick Google search failed to turn up any reason that NESCAC would be interested for either academic or geographic reasons.  Could you elaborate?

NAIA school in upstate New York.  Very high academic standards on a par with NESCAC schools, affiliated with either the Methodist or Wesleyan church I believe, not 100% sure though.  I consider my source an extremely reliable one in this matter.

http://www.houghton.edu/

Upstate seems to mean anything outside of NYC!  Houghton is about as far western NY as you can get.  I would think the nearest NESCAC school must be 300+ miles. ;)

And their academics seem pretty pedestrian.  Not bad, but for a 'Christian' school, they ain't Wheaton (IL).  And they certainly don't seem to be NESCAC.  I just can't see it.

And this is NOT playing the 'academics card'.  My entire career was teaching at a college whose 'academics' (in terms of SATs or ACTs) would make Houghton look good. ;)  I'm very definitely a guy who thinks there need to be schools where ANYONE who wants to try to get a college education has a chance to try.  It just doesn't seem like Houghton is a fit for the NESCAC either geographically or academically.

I agree... not quite NESCAC compatible academically.

Class of 2013 Profile: Academics (http://www.houghton.edu/admission/overview/profile.htm)

Average SAT: Critical Reading (600), Math (578), Writing (582)
Middle 50% SAT: 1050-1280 (on Critical Reading and Math sections)
Average ACT: 26
Average high school GPA: 3.56
36% or ranked students graduated in the top 10% of their high school class
16 high school valedictorians
76 students will participate in a Houghton First-Year Honors Program

Colby Class of 2014 - Admitted Student Profile (http://www.colby.edu/admissions_cs/about/index.cfm?clear=y)

700/700/700   median SAT critical reading/math/writing
31   median ACT composite
62   percent reporting top 5% rank in class

All I am doing is reporting news from a source that would know what conferences they are talking to and what conferences have shown interest.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on December 17, 2010, 12:10:33 PM
Appreciate the news! No doubt about it.
Just wanted to substantiate what Ypsi threw out there.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 17, 2010, 02:37:02 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on December 16, 2010, 11:55:10 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 16, 2010, 10:50:07 PM
Even though I'm a retired college professor, I confess I had never even heard of Houghton College.  A quick Google search failed to turn up any reason that NESCAC would be interested for either academic or geographic reasons.  Could you elaborate?

NAIA school in upstate New York.  Very high academic standards on a par with NESCAC schools, affiliated with either the Methodist or Wesleyan church I believe, not 100% sure though.  I consider my source an extremely reliable one in this matter.

http://www.houghton.edu/

Houghton is affiliated with the Wesleyan Church. Speaking as someone who knows a ton of Houghton alumni -- it and Wheaton were the schools of choice for my church peers while I was growing up in the Syracuse suburbs -- I can confirm that, while it's a solid school academically, it's not an academic powerhouse on par with any of the NESCAC schools.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 17, 2010, 01:06:10 AMUpstate seems to mean anything outside of NYC!

The dividing line between upstate and downstate has always been a matter of dispute, although the vast majority of people consider it to be somewhere in the lower Hudson Valley, and the place where one draws the line is often determined by his or her point of origin. Growing up in Central New York, I was always told that anything below Poughkeepsie was downstate, and anything north of Poughkeepsie was upstate. But, as I said, people draw the line in different places. The Wiki page on Upstae New York goes into the upstate/downstate dividing line in great detail.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 17, 2010, 01:06:10 AMHoughton is about as far western NY as you can get.

No, not really. There's still a lot of New York real estate to the west of Houghton. But it certainly is a lot farther west than, say, Hamilton. Equally important, though, is Houghton's inaccessibility. It's well off the beaten path as far as highways go. That's a not a debilitating factor for the Empire 8, which has most of Houghton's nearby peers (e.g., Alfred, Elmira), but it certainly is for other D3 conferences.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: pg04 on December 17, 2010, 03:00:21 PM
It's always been my experience that when saying you are from New York State, you have to put the qualifier of Upstate on it or people automatically think you're from the city.  This has happened to me several times both in Florida and now in Georgia.  

Buffalo State, UB, Niagara, Canisius, Fredonia, St. Bonaventure, among others are all colleges west of Houghton, while Geneseo and Brockport (and of course Alfred, which is nearest) are around the same longitude as Houghton.  
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 17, 2010, 03:42:53 PM
Quote from: pg04 on December 17, 2010, 03:00:21 PM
It's always been my experience that when saying you are from New York State, you have to put the qualifier of Upstate on it or people automatically think you're from the city.  This has happened to me several times both in Florida and now in Georgia.

Very true. When I went away to school in Chicago I stopped identifying myself as someone from New York after being asked, "Where's your accent?" or "How does Chicago compare to the Big Apple?" about a hundred times apiece. But when I told them I was from upstate New York, all I got was blank stares. See, Chicagoans know all about the concept of downstate (i.e., anything in Illinois outside of Chicago and the suburban "collar counties", including such places as Rockford that aren't "down" -- in other words, south -- from Chicago at all). But the concept of upstate leaves them befuddled.

Eventually, I simply started telling people that I grew up in a suburb of Syracuse. Enough people have heard of that city, thanks mostly to Syracuse University, that I managed to escape the barrage of ignorant questions about being a Gothamite.

For the record, though, midwesterners are continually astonished when I tell them that I grew up in a city that's a good five hours' drive from New York City, and that as a result I never visited NYC until I was sixteen. Midwesterners think that the northeast is so geographically constricted that everyone lives within a couple of hours of Manhattan. When you tell them that Jamestown, in far southwestern New York, is almost equidistant between NYC and Chicago in terms of travel time -- it's seven hours to the former and eight hours to the latter -- it absolutely boggles their minds.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on December 17, 2010, 09:34:49 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 17, 2010, 03:42:53 PM
For the record, though, midwesterners are continually astonished when I tell them that I grew up in a city that's a good five hours' drive from New York City, and that as a result I never visited NYC until I was sixteen. Midwesterners think that the northeast is so geographically constricted that everyone lives within a couple of hours of Manhattan. When you tell them that Jamestown, in far southwestern New York, is almost equidistant between NYC and Chicago in terms of travel time -- it's seven hours to the former and eight hours to the latter -- it absolutely boggles their minds.
A college friend of mine recently told me he was going to be in Los Angeles, and would I like to meet him for lunch?  LA, while admittedly also in California, is about an 11-hour drive for me, depending on traffic and what part of the sprawling city he had in mind.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 17, 2010, 11:40:54 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on December 17, 2010, 09:34:49 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 17, 2010, 03:42:53 PM
For the record, though, midwesterners are continually astonished when I tell them that I grew up in a city that's a good five hours' drive from New York City, and that as a result I never visited NYC until I was sixteen. Midwesterners think that the northeast is so geographically constricted that everyone lives within a couple of hours of Manhattan. When you tell them that Jamestown, in far southwestern New York, is almost equidistant between NYC and Chicago in terms of travel time -- it's seven hours to the former and eight hours to the latter -- it absolutely boggles their minds.
A college friend of mine recently told me he was going to be in Los Angeles, and would I like to meet him for lunch?  LA, while admittedly also in California, is about an 11-hour drive for me, depending on traffic and what part of the sprawling city he had in mind.

I confess I thought you were in SoCal.  Where are you?

And I thought (until you hit the LA freeways) everything in Cali was within a couple of (really fast) hours of each other! ;D

[Finlandia faced the same sort of problem.  The NCAA finally re-classified them as West region; they were almost 450 miles from the nearest Great Lakes region team! ;)]
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 18, 2010, 01:02:39 AM
http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2010/12/mcmurry-to-move-to-d2

So long, McMurry?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Titan Q on December 18, 2010, 08:03:32 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 18, 2010, 01:02:39 AM
http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2010/12/mcmurry-to-move-to-d2

So long, McMurry?

I sure hope we don't lose Ralph Turner here.  He is the #1-seed poster on this site in my opinion.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: HSCTiger74 on December 18, 2010, 09:26:43 AM
Quote from: Titan Q on December 18, 2010, 08:03:32 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 18, 2010, 01:02:39 AM
http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2010/12/mcmurry-to-move-to-d2

So long, McMurry?

I sure hope we don't lose Ralph Turner here.  He is the #1-seed poster on this site in my opinion.


I'll second that, and +k for being the first to say so. When Ralph weighs in on an issue you know that he has given it some thought and, while it may not be what you wanted to hear, you'll get an honest and unbiased opinion. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on December 18, 2010, 08:19:51 PM
Will this change U of New Orleans plans?  There wasn't room in the ASC last week, but there is now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 18, 2010, 11:27:43 PM
UNO may have budgetary issues, and I wonder if the ASC really wants the extra travel burden.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on December 19, 2010, 10:51:06 AM
If I were a betting man, I would wager a large sum that Houghton College would not join NESCAC in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 19, 2010, 03:27:33 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on December 18, 2010, 08:03:32 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 18, 2010, 01:02:39 AM
http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2010/12/mcmurry-to-move-to-d2

So long, McMurry?

I sure hope we don't lose Ralph Turner here.  He is the #1-seed poster on this site in my opinion.

This makes twice this week that Bob has taken the words right out of my mouth.

McMurry itself doesn't hold much personal attachment for me. But I would hate to lose Ralph.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: snowboy40 on December 19, 2010, 05:14:03 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 19, 2010, 10:51:06 AM
If I were a betting man, I would wager a large sum that Houghton College would not join NESCAC in the foreseeable future.

.....I can't believe that this Houghton going to the NESCAC isn't a mistaken report from the get-go...I'll bet what they mean is Houghton playing in the NEAC with the likes of Keuka, Medaille, Cazenovia etc....that's a conference that runs through western NY and western PA and would seem to make way more sense.....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 19, 2010, 06:52:08 PM
Quote from: snowboy40 on December 19, 2010, 05:14:03 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 19, 2010, 10:51:06 AM
If I were a betting man, I would wager a large sum that Houghton College would not join NESCAC in the foreseeable future.

.....I can't believe that this Houghton going to the NESCAC isn't a mistaken report from the get-go...I'll bet what they mean is Houghton playing in the NEAC with the likes of Keuka, Medaille, Cazenovia etc....that's a conference that runs through western NY and western PA and would seem to make way more sense.....

Agreed, snowboy.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 20, 2010, 11:41:29 AM
Quote from: snowboy40 on December 19, 2010, 05:14:03 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 19, 2010, 10:51:06 AM
If I were a betting man, I would wager a large sum that Houghton College would not join NESCAC in the foreseeable future.

.....I can't believe that this Houghton going to the NESCAC isn't a mistaken report from the get-go...I'll bet what they mean is Houghton playing in the NEAC with the likes of Keuka, Medaille, Cazenovia etc....that's a conference that runs through western NY and western PA and would seem to make way more sense.....

Actually the report came straight from the horses mouth so to say.  This is from someone involved in the process at Houghton.  The coaches are about evenly split, some are strongly pushing for the NESCAC, not the NEAC, I do know the difference.  The rest of the coaches want to join the E8 if they have to go NCAA, some want to stay NAIA but realize the competition is not there anymore, especially for their Mens soccer team.

I realize that Houghton may not fit the NESCAC profile and most likely would not join, do not Poo Poo the fact that they are discussing membership with Houghton.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: frank uible on December 20, 2010, 02:26:56 PM
Poo poo.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2010, 03:25:46 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 20, 2010, 02:26:56 PM
Poo poo.
Houghton does not have a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.  That doesn't help their case.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2010, 03:48:01 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2010, 03:25:46 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 20, 2010, 02:26:56 PM
Poo poo.
Houghton does not have a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.  That doesn't help their case.
Phi Beta Kappa Chapter map (http://www.pbk.org/infoview/PBK_InfoView.aspx?t=&id=11)

The person who plotted the location of the chapters messed up on several aspects of the maps, e.g., misspellings of member institutions, wrong locations.

Pomona College just south of Sacramento
University of California - Irvin
University of California Santa Barbara - just due west of Sacramento
University of California Los Angless

Louisiana State University where New Orleans is located.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on December 20, 2010, 04:45:09 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2010, 03:48:01 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2010, 03:25:46 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 20, 2010, 02:26:56 PM
Poo poo.
Houghton does not have a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.  That doesn't help their case.
Phi Beta Kappa Chapter map (http://www.pbk.org/infoview/PBK_InfoView.aspx?t=&id=11)

The person who plotted the location of the chapters messed up on several aspects of the maps, e.g., misspellings of member institutions, wrong locations.

Pomona College just south of Sacramento
University of California - Irvin
University of California Santa Barbara - just due west of Sacramento
University of California Los Angless

Louisiana State University where New Orleans is located.

Also apparently Augustana College got sick of the Quad Cities and moved to Southeastern Illinois.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on December 20, 2010, 04:48:59 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on December 20, 2010, 04:45:09 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2010, 03:48:01 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2010, 03:25:46 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 20, 2010, 02:26:56 PM
Poo poo.
Houghton does not have a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.  That doesn't help their case.
Phi Beta Kappa Chapter map (http://www.pbk.org/infoview/PBK_InfoView.aspx?t=&id=11)

The person who plotted the location of the chapters messed up on several aspects of the maps, e.g., misspellings of member institutions, wrong locations.

Pomona College just south of Sacramento
University of California - Irvin
University of California Santa Barbara - just due west of Sacramento
University of California Los Angless

Louisiana State University where New Orleans is located.

Also apparently Augustana College got sick of the Quad Cities and moved to Southeastern Illinois.

Also, they have a Williams College just outside of Baltimore. Missed that mark by a wee bit ...  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: snowboy40 on December 20, 2010, 09:38:39 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2010, 03:25:46 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 20, 2010, 02:26:56 PM
Poo poo.
Houghton does not have a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.  That doesn't help their case.


.....no football, hockey and lacrosse probably doesn't help their case either...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2010, 10:21:58 PM
Quote from: snowboy40 on December 20, 2010, 09:38:39 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2010, 03:25:46 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 20, 2010, 02:26:56 PM
Poo poo.
Houghton does not have a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.  That doesn't help their case.


.....no football, hockey and lacrosse probably doesn't help their case either...
I think that the NEAC has real up-side to it.  Where Houghton is located, they can build a reputation when they play the E8, SUNYAC and LL in  non-conference.

I think that it is good move for Houghton.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 21, 2010, 08:05:55 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2010, 10:21:58 PM
Quote from: snowboy40 on December 20, 2010, 09:38:39 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2010, 03:25:46 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 20, 2010, 02:26:56 PM
Poo poo.
Houghton does not have a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.  That doesn't help their case.


.....no football, hockey and lacrosse probably doesn't help their case either...
I think that the NEAC has real up-side to it.  Where Houghton is located, they can build a reputation when they play the E8, SUNYAC and LL in  non-conference.

I think that it is good move for Houghton.

They want to move with a conference that has top level competition for their soccer, basketball and cross country and track and field programs.  That is not the NEAC.  At this point they are only interested in the two conferences previously mentioned.  Their soccer program is top notch and can compete with the best of D-III already, cross country and track and field are also very good
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on December 21, 2010, 08:53:53 AM
The point that you seem to deliberately ignore is that the primary focus of the NESCAC is not athletic prowess but academic achievement.  Houghton coaches can want to join the conference all they want, but the NESCAC won't seriously consider their application.   

Founded in 1971, the New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC) is a group of eleven highly selective liberal arts colleges and universities that share a similar philosophy for intercollegiate athletics. The Conference was created out of a concern for the direction of intercollegiate athletic programs, and remains committed to keeping a proper perspective on the role of sport in higher education.

Houghton's not a 'highly selective' college as stated by others already.   It's simply not on the same level, and the NESCAC isn't going to lower their standards for anyone. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on December 21, 2010, 08:17:04 PM
I am not ignoring that or discounting that.  I am just reporting news straight from the horses mouth so to speak and people seem to doubt that this is being discussed between Houghton and the NESCAC.  The information I got is that Houghton and the NESCAC were discussing membership.  That is all I ever reported and that Houghton is also interested in the Empire 8 and that they are the only two D-III conferences that Houghton is considering at this time.  Other people are stating that I am mistaken and that it must be the NEAC they are discussing.  I was not actually given a name, I was given the names of other conference members of the conferences they are in discussions with.  I was told that Houghton was discussing membership with the conferences that Williams, Amherst and Hamilton are a member of and that Ithaca, SJF and Alfred were members of.  What does that say to you?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on December 21, 2010, 10:49:05 PM
Hamilton's in the Liberty League. That makes a lot more sense than the NESCAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 21, 2010, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 21, 2010, 10:49:05 PM
Hamilton's in the Liberty League. That makes a lot more sense than the NESCAC.
Hamilton was a dual member in the LL and NESCAC, but they have migrated to the NESCAC over the last year or two.

http://www.wktv.com/news/sports/local/43122562.html

:)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 21, 2010, 11:15:11 PM
Not yet, however. Hamilton isn't yet playing basketball in the NESCAC again.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 21, 2010, 11:30:07 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 21, 2010, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 21, 2010, 10:49:05 PM
Hamilton's in the Liberty League. That makes a lot more sense than the NESCAC.
Hamilton was a dual member in the LL and NESCAC, but they have migrated to the NESCAC over the last year or two.

http://www.wktv.com/news/sports/local/43122562.html

:)

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 21, 2010, 11:15:11 PM
Not yet, however. Hamilton isn't yet playing basketball in the NESCAC again.

Right.

QuoteThe presidents of the 11 colleges comprising the New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC) voted at their regular meeting in Maine on April 15 [2009] to integrate Hamilton fully into conference play effective with the 2011-12 academic year.

....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on December 21, 2010, 11:41:08 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on December 21, 2010, 08:17:04 PMI was told that Houghton was discussing membership with the conferences that Williams, Amherst and Hamilton are a member of ...
We can debate all night whether Hamilton is a full-fledged member at this particular moment, but it does not change the fact that the conference referred to in this statement clearly is the NESCAC.  Whether any of us believe that Houghton is likely to end up in the NESCAC is another matter; all Knightstalker, whose credibility I do not doubt, is saying is that they are discussing it. 

Maybe it's like that time in high school when I asked the head cheerleader to the prom: as long as she was still doubled over in laughter and hadn't managed to get the word "no" out, we were still officially discussing it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 22, 2010, 12:56:37 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 21, 2010, 11:30:07 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 21, 2010, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 21, 2010, 10:49:05 PM
Hamilton's in the Liberty League. That makes a lot more sense than the NESCAC.
Hamilton was a dual member in the LL and NESCAC, but they have migrated to the NESCAC over the last year or two.

http://www.wktv.com/news/sports/local/43122562.html

:)

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 21, 2010, 11:15:11 PM
Not yet, however. Hamilton isn't yet playing basketball in the NESCAC again.

Right.

QuoteThe presidents of the 11 colleges comprising the New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC) voted at their regular meeting in Maine on April 15 [2009] to integrate Hamilton fully into conference play effective with the 2011-12 academic year.

....

Right -- it's just that "migrated to" is past tense, suggesting completion of the process. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 22, 2010, 09:33:55 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 22, 2010, 12:56:37 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 21, 2010, 11:30:07 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 21, 2010, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 21, 2010, 10:49:05 PM
Hamilton's in the Liberty League. That makes a lot more sense than the NESCAC.
Hamilton was a dual member in the LL and NESCAC, but they have migrated to the NESCAC over the last year or two.

http://www.wktv.com/news/sports/local/43122562.html

:)

Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 21, 2010, 11:15:11 PM
Not yet, however. Hamilton isn't yet playing basketball in the NESCAC again.

Right.

QuoteThe presidents of the 11 colleges comprising the New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC) voted at their regular meeting in Maine on April 15 [2009] to integrate Hamilton fully into conference play effective with the 2011-12 academic year.

....

Right -- it's just that "migrated to" is past tense, suggesting completion of the process. :)
Thanks.   :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on December 22, 2010, 10:04:01 AM
Well, alrighty then!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: CrashDavisD3 on December 23, 2010, 01:52:37 AM
Two Division III schools are in this article from the same conference  SCIAC
http://finance.yahoo.com/college-education/article/111664/collges-that-bring-the-highest-paycheck

Cal Tech
Harvey Mudd (Claremont-Mudd-Scripps(CMS))
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on December 23, 2010, 09:05:43 AM
Actually three D-III schools.... MIT.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 16, 2011, 11:03:59 PM
Alexandria LA Town Talk (http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20110116/SPORTS/101160312/Centenary-UNO-prepare-to-join-LC-in-NCAA-Division-III) about the moves by Centenary and UNO from D-1

Discusses the indebtedness by UNO athletics, the need to add sports at UNO (only 2 needed to be D-II), the resistance by alumni at Centenary and support by the faculty to cut missed class time.

Centenary College interim AD is Dave Voskuil.  He knows his stuff.  He will hire a good staff!

(I will bet that Centenary adds football in year-2 of provisional status.  It makes too much sense to add another 80-120 male students to a 56% female/44% male 887-student body.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on January 18, 2011, 02:21:58 PM
D3 partners with Special Olympics

Link (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/january/diii+partnership+with+special+olympics+off+to+stirring+start)

Modified for brevity  Thanks for the link.  Ralph Turner
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on February 08, 2011, 01:37:38 PM
   
DIII championships panel to begin study of squad, travel and bench limits

Link (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/february/panel+to+study+diii+championship+competition+limits)





Modified for brevity  Thanks for the link.  Ralph Turner
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 17, 2011, 11:44:17 AM
Is Colorado College thinking about moving to the closer pastures of the Rocky Mounain Athletic Conference and Division II?

http://www.cnjonline.com/sports/invite-42022-mountain-mulling.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2011, 12:01:01 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 17, 2011, 11:44:17 AM
Is Colorado College thinking about moving to the closer pastures of the Rocky Mounain Athletic Conference and Division II?

http://www.cnjonline.com/sports/invite-42022-mountain-mulling.html

It's a poor, poor fit academically and otherwise.  I think they'll stay put.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2011, 12:08:15 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 17, 2011, 12:01:01 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 17, 2011, 11:44:17 AM
Is Colorado College thinking about moving to the closer pastures of the Rocky Mounain Athletic Conference and Division II?

http://www.cnjonline.com/sports/invite-42022-mountain-mulling.html

It's a poor, poor fit academically and otherwise.  I think they'll stay put.
However, Colorado College has their special "Block Plan" which means that the students take one course at a time.  You miss a lot of school on a road trip to Oglethorpe and Sewanee.

Colorado School of Mines would like them, and the savings in the travel budget probably cannot be ignored.

I also think that the prospects for restoring football may be better in D2.  The eastern half of the RMAC is looking to move eastward, so the trips to Nebraska would go away.

The missed classtime issue should carry a lot of weight in this discussion.

This will clear the way for Berry to join the SCAC.  With the addition of UDallas, this makes for a "tighter" geogrpahical conference, too.


There have been rumors of ENMU going to the RMAC, and now Black Hills State has been invited to join!

Black Hills State (http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/sports/article_840ae988-3619-11e0-b83c-001cc4c03286.html)

UNebKearney is leaving.  There was also thoughts that BHSU and SD School of Mines would go as a travel pair.

QuoteThe Yellow Jackets were one of three schools that were extended invitations by the RMAC. The other two have not been released, but Mines' Athletic Director Dick Kaiser said that the Hardrockers did not receive one of the other two invites.


Quote"What we were told by the RMAC is that there was no big reason BH was selected over us, but we heard there was some inner squabbling between the Colorado schools," he [Mines' Athletic Director Dick Kaiser] said. "Some wanted to make it a 100 percent Colorado schools conference only, and some obviously didn't. In a compromise, they chose one school from the north, one from the middle region and one from the south. I do not know why they chose BH and not us, but for me to speculate would not be fair to our institution."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2011, 03:13:15 PM

Maybe the economy has hit CC harder than I thought, but they've always put reputation over money.  The prestige hit alone would make half the alums roll over in their graves (or mausoleums, as the case may be).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 17, 2011, 03:14:01 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 17, 2011, 03:13:15 PM

Maybe the economy has hit CC harder than I thought, but they've always put reputation over money.  The prestige hit alone would make half the alums roll over in their graves (or mausoleums, as the case may be).

I'd just like to point out that I spelled "mausoleums" correctly on the first try.  I'm typically a horrible speller.  This might have been the highlight of my day.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2011, 03:44:50 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 17, 2011, 03:14:01 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 17, 2011, 03:13:15 PM

Maybe the economy has hit CC harder than I thought, but they've always put reputation over money.  The prestige hit alone would make half the alums roll over in their graves (or mausoleums, as the case may be).

I'd just like to point out that I spelled "mausoleums" correctly on the first try.  I'm typically a horrible speller.  This might have been the highlight of my day.
Or, someone surreptitiously activated the "automated spellcheck and correction" feature of the browser for a random 30-second time period that coincided with that posting.   ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on February 17, 2011, 05:28:53 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 17, 2011, 03:13:15 PM

Maybe the economy has hit CC harder than I thought, but they've always put reputation over money.  The prestige hit alone would make half the alums roll over in their graves (or mausoleums, as the case may be).
And the ones in urns would be smoking mad? :P
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 17, 2011, 05:58:30 PM
Would the NCAA continue to grant CoCo the exemption to host D1 ice hockey if they made the move to D2?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2011, 08:07:28 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 17, 2011, 05:58:30 PM
Would the NCAA continue to grant CoCo the exemption to host D1 ice hockey if they made the move to D2?
Yes, because there is only one classification in NCAA "scholarship" men's ice hockey.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: GoGreenGoRed on March 10, 2011, 10:29:13 AM
Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I came across the below article the other day. I thought it was really interesting that conventional wisdom seemed to be that you couldn't be a Sabbath-observing Jew and be a college athlete (with Yeshiva as the obvious exception I'd assume), especially because there are so many DIII schools that won't play on Sundays. What are your thoughts?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/wires/03/02/2080.ap.us.gymnast.sabbath.1st.ld.writethru.1708/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 05, 2011, 11:10:01 PM
Stevenson (and Hood)  (http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2011/05/stevenson-hood-join-mac) will leave the Capital AC to join the MAC Commonwealth in 2012-13.

Frostburg State had joined the Capital this year to keep the number of baseball playing members at 7, after Gallaudet moved to the NEAC.

Losing both schools changes several dynamics.  In baseball specifically, the CAC will have 6 members in the 2013 and 2014 seasons.  They will keep their Pool A baseball bid during that time.  By fall 2014, they will need another full member, or they will fall back into Pool B for the 2015 season.

Another thought about the Capital AC is that Wesley needs a football conference badly, and Stevenson, a football affiliate of the MAC just left the CAC as its home conference.  Where can Wesley find a football home?

CNU needs a football conference.  What does CNU think about that conference just to their north now?  Does that change anything for them?


Also posted on the baseball Pool B board...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on May 07, 2011, 11:34:03 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on May 05, 2011, 11:10:01 PM
Stevenson (and Hood)  (http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2011/05/stevenson-hood-join-mac) will leave the Capital AC to join the MAC Commonwealth in 2012-13.

Frostburg State had joined the Capital this year to keep the number of baseball playing members at 7, after Gallaudet moved to the NEAC.

Losing both schools changes several dynamics.  In baseball specifically, the CAC will have 6 members in the 2013 and 2014 seasons.  They will keep their Pool A baseball bid during that time.  By fall 2014, they will need another full member, or they will fall back into Pool B for the 2015 season.

Another thought about the Capital AC is that Wesley needs a football conference badly, and Stevenson, a football affiliate of the MAC just left the CAC as its home conference.  Where can Wesley find a football home?

CNU needs a football.  What does CNU think about that conference just to their north now?  Does that change anything for them?


Also posted on the baseball Pool B board...

  I hear whispers of more conference shake ups
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 07, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
I'm sure there will be. I don't think all the dominoes have fallen in the USA South, for example.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on May 07, 2011, 02:46:30 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 07, 2011, 02:41:15 PM
I'm sure there will be. I don't think all the dominoes have fallen in the USA South, for example.

I agree Pat. And maybe a school or two adding football will make things even more interesting ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: bballer1280 on May 09, 2011, 10:34:10 AM
I understand that changes will be occurring in the future for the Midwest Conference.  Does anyone have an idea how those changes will evolve in the next couple of years and beyond?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on May 09, 2011, 12:04:00 PM
Quote from: bballer1280 on May 09, 2011, 10:34:10 AM
I understand that changes will be occurring in the future for the Midwest Conference.  Does anyone have an idea how those changes will evolve in the next couple of years and beyond?

Man, if I had a finger for every time I heard about changes in the Midwest Conference I could fill a pair of gloves. They have moved into the "I'll believe it when I see it" category.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: bballer1280 on May 12, 2011, 12:08:35 PM
The only Midwest Conference re-alignment detail that has occurred that I am definitely aware of is that Cornell College has officially petitioned to join the conference beginning as early as the 2012-2013 academic year.  There application is to be reviewed and voted on by the conference during their spring meetings.  If Cornell's application is approved, that will give the conference 11 members and that is really a bad number in many ways.  So, I do believe that changes to the conference could very easily be ready to take place with the addition of Cornell and, perhaps, at least one other college.

In addition, rumors persist that the seven current Midwest Conference colleges (Beloit, Grinnell, Knox, Lake Forest, Lawrence, Monmouth, and Ripon) that are also members of the Associated Colleges of the Midwest along with Cornell (also a member of the ACM) are giving strong consideration to forming a new D-III conference.  Has anyone heard these rumors and do you have any more information to add to the discussion?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 12, 2011, 12:16:28 PM
Quote from: bballer1280 on May 12, 2011, 12:08:35 PM
The only Midwest Conference re-alignment detail that has occurred that I am definitely aware of is that Cornell College has officially petitioned to join the conference beginning as early as the 2012-2013 academic year.  There application is to be reviewed and voted on by the conference during their spring meetings.  If Cornell's application is approved, that will give the conference 11 members and that is really a bad number in many ways.  So, I do believe that changes to the conference could very easily be ready to take place with the addition of Cornell and, perhaps, at least one other college.

In addition, rumors persist that the seven current Midwest Conference colleges (Beloit, Grinnell, Knox, Lake Forest, Lawrence, Monmouth, and Ripon) that are also members of the Associated Colleges of the Midwest along with Cornell (also a member of the ACM) are giving strong consideration to forming a new D-III conference.  Has anyone heard these rumors and do you have any more information to add to the discussion?

This has been the gist of the discussions that we have had on these boards before.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: haterinthehouse on May 12, 2011, 12:38:23 PM
There needs to be a leadership program like this for small college coaches:
http://www.sportleadership.vcu.edu/villa7/index.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on May 12, 2011, 01:45:13 PM
could be upset of the century:

http://www.kentucky.com/2011/05/12/1738180/uk-transylvania-will-renew-basketball.html


i recall depauw playing northwestern and getting blasted but this is a different level.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 12, 2011, 04:30:51 PM
Chapman has joined the SCIAC, ending more than a decade of trying without success.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on May 12, 2011, 04:41:47 PM
Should I interpret that faint "Boom!" I just heard as the sound of OxyBob putting a bullet through his head?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: dahlby on May 12, 2011, 04:56:28 PM
chapmanathletics.com   has the Chapman press release along with a link to the SCIAC release.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 12, 2011, 05:50:07 PM
And D3sports.com has a more complete story with some perspective and answers to a couple of follow-up questions.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 12, 2011, 07:03:16 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 12, 2011, 05:50:07 PM
And D3sports.com has a more complete story with some perspective and answers to a couple of follow-up questions.

I thought that this was an interesting point for the 2011-12 season  (emphasis added).

QuoteMembership will take effect on July 1, 2011, and in its first year, Chapman will be ineligible to qualify for league championships. During the transition period, the Panthers will be eligible to qualify solely for at-large bids (Pool C) into NCAA Championships.

Pool C?  No Pool B?  Wow.  UDallas has moved to the SCAC in 2011-12.  Pool B will be down 2.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 29, 2011, 07:15:44 PM
Four schools consider SCAC departure in 2012 (http://www.thedepauw.com/sports/four-schools-consider-scac-departure-in-2012-1.2225563)

From the SCAC board with h/t to Ron Boerger...


FTA...
QuoteSewanee: The University of the South, Rhodes College, Hendrix College and Centre College (black dots on map) all voted to leave the SCAC, effective July 1, 2012.

Discussion begins on the SCAC Football Board on page 594, post 8900.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 31, 2011, 12:12:57 PM
SUNY-Potsdam on 2-year probation. (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2011/infractions/20110421+d3+coi+ny+postdam+rls?pageDesign=old+news+releases+template)

Quote
April 21, 2011

INDIANAPOLIS---The NCAA Division III Committee on Infractions has penalized State University of New York at Potsdam for violations of financial aid rules. The violations involved the men's and women's ice hockey; men's and women's lacrosse; women's volleyball and women's soccer programs.

Penalties in this case include two years probation and a postseason ban.

This case was resolved through the summary disposition process, a cooperative effort where the involved parties submit the case to the Committee on Infractions in written form. When the NCAA enforcement staff, the university and involved individuals agree to the facts of the case and penalties proposed by the university, they may use this process instead of a formal hearing.

...

Too high of a percentage of international athletes getting aid relative to their percentage composition of the student body...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 31, 2011, 12:16:08 PM
Fontbonne Probation (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/ncaa/ncaa/media+and+events/press+room/news+release+archive/2011/infractions/division+iii+committee+on+infractions+issues+decision+on+fontbonne+university?pageDesign=old+news+releases+template)

Quote

April 12, 2011


INDIANAPOLIS---The NCAA Division III Committee on Infractions has found Fontbonne University committed major violations in its athletics program regarding its financial aid process. Penalties in this case include two years of probation. Under the conditions of this probation, the university must notify all prospective student-athletes of the penalty and provide initial and annual compliance reports to the Committee on Infractions, among others.

This case was resolved through the summary disposition process, a cooperative effort where the involved parties submit the case to the Committee on Infractions in written form. When the NCAA enforcement staff, the school and involved individuals agree to the facts of the case and the school-proposed penalties, they may use this process instead of having a formal hearing.

The violations in this case occurred when administrators considered high school athletics participation along with other leadership criteria when awarding merit based scholarships.  Because of  the consideration of high school athletics in awarding aid, more than $48,000 was awarded to 23 student-athletes who would not have been eligible for the aid had the high school sports not been considered. NCAA rules state that Division III schools cannot consider athletics participation or performance when determining financial aid.

...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on May 31, 2011, 04:11:44 PM
Sanctions against Potsdam State and Fontbonne. Might there be more coming?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on May 31, 2011, 04:14:29 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on May 31, 2011, 04:11:44 PM
Sanctions against Potsdam State and Fontbonne. Might there be more coming?

Probably ... did you see this thread from a little while back?

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=7319.0
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on May 31, 2011, 05:51:03 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on May 31, 2011, 04:14:29 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on May 31, 2011, 04:11:44 PM
Sanctions against Potsdam State and Fontbonne. Might there be more coming?

Probably ... did you see this thread from a little while back?

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=7319.0

Thanks for the heads-up; I missed that thread. Perhaps D3 will no longer be the "least policed" division.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 14, 2011, 10:34:39 AM
Increasing the number of ranked teams, and getting it closer to the 15% ratio that the men use should help the isolated conferences with their assessment for Pool C bids.

QuoteAgreed with a Division III Women's Basketball Championship Committee request to allow each region to rank eight teams, except for the Northeast region, which would continue to rank 10 teams, effective for the 2011-12 season.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 10, 2011, 09:05:21 AM
Four new active members in 2011-12 (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2011/June/DIII+Membership+Committee+recommends+four+new+active+members)

[From the article... with comments in brackets]

If approved by the Division III Management Council in July, the following will begin active status in Division III on Sept. 1:

   Franciscan University Steubenville (Steubenville, Ohio)  [AMCC]
   Geneva College (Beaver Falls, Pa.)    [Presidents AC]
   St. Joseph's College (Brooklyn, N.Y.)  [Independent]
   Birmingham-Southern College (Birmingham, Ala.)  [SCAC]
...


[Year 4 provisional]
Meeting June 22-23 in Indianapolis, the Membership Committee also agreed to move the following schools to the final year of provisional membership:

   Spalding University (Louisville, Ky.) [SLIAC]
   State University of New York at Cobleskill (Cobleskill, N.Y.) [NEAC]

[And on the fast track...]

If those institutions successfully complete year four of the provisional/reclassifying process, they could be accepted as active Division III members for the 2012-13 academic year. The Membership Committee also approved Penn State Abington (Abington, Pa.) [NEAC] moving from Year 2 to Year 3 of provisional membership and endorsed a waiver request from the school to combine Years 3 and 4 of the provisional process, meaning the school could achieve active status by 2012-13. That recommendation must be approved by the Management Council.



Abington can be active in 2012-13.

Link (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect//ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2011/division+iii/diii+membership+application+fee+to+increase)

Quote
The Council also approved a waiver that allows Penn State Abington (Abington, Pa.) to combine Years 3 and 4 of the provisional process, meaning the school could achieve active status by 2012-13.


[Year 3 Provisional - contests against these schools will count toward "in-region" games, etc.]

Committee members also approved the following schools to move from Year 2 to Year 3 of provisional membership (meaning they are on track to achieve active membership in 2013-14):

   Berry College (Mount Berry, Ga.) [headed for new "CAC" conference]
   Covenant College (Lookout Mountain, Ga.) [headed for Great South Athletic Conference]




[Year 1 Reclassifying -- Centenary had contractual obligations to the Summit League]

In other action regarding the provisional/reclassifying track, the committee voted to retain Centenary College (Shreveport, La.) [ASC] in Year 1 of reclassifying membership (on track to achieve active membership in 2015-16).



Centenary College has won its appeal and is now Year-2 Reclassifying


QuoteThe Council also noted that while the Membership Committee at its summer meeting voted to retain Centenary College (Shreveport, La.) in Year 1 of reclassifying membership, the committee on a subsequent conference call approved Centenary's appeal of that action, meaning the school now has been cleared to enter Year 2 of the provisional/reclassifying membership process.

Link (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect//ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2011/division+iii/diii+membership+application+fee+to+increase)

They can be active in 2014-15.







[Exploratory year]

The committee also approved the following seven schools to conduct an exploratory year in 2011-12 before possibly seeking provisional/reclassifying membership the following year:

   Georgetown College (Georgetown, Ky.)
   State University of New York at Canton (Canton, N.Y.)
   Houghton College (Houghton, N.Y.)
   Kentucky Wesleyan College (Owensboro, Ky.)
   Sarah Lawrence College (Bronxville, N.Y.)
   Southern Virginia University (Buena Vista, Va.)
   Valley Forge Christian College (Phoenixville, Pa.)




The Division III Management Council will consider these actions at its July 25-26 meeting in Indianapolis.
Title: Private College Week
Post by: Gray Fox on July 26, 2011, 10:14:10 PM
Four states have something similar to this.  A good idea for most of our schools.

  http://www.indianacollegechoices.org/private_college_week.asp
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 25, 2011, 05:12:08 PM
Musical Chairs in D-III (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/september/division+iii+conferences+play+their+own+game+of+musical+chairs?&utm_source=delivra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NCAA%20News%20Direct)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 01, 2011, 06:30:44 PM
With only the Mississippi College Choctaws remaining in D-III, and McMurry, Mitchell and scores of others now called something else, here is a "man bites dog" story.

Spirit Lake Tribe of the Fighting Sioux (http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2011/11/01/Tribe-sues-NCAA-to-let-school-use-name/UPI-64071320174769/)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 01, 2011, 08:36:37 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 01, 2011, 06:30:44 PM
With only the Mississippi College Choctaws remaining in D-III, and McMurry, Mitchell and scores of others now called something else, here is a "man bites dog" story.

Spirit Lake Tribe of the Fighting Sioux (http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2011/11/01/Tribe-sues-NCAA-to-let-school-use-name/UPI-64071320174769/)

Thanks for posting that, Ralph.  Officially, Eastern Michigan University may now be the Eagles (like 73,000 other schools), but many of us are still and will always be Hurons.  Which is exactly what the Hurons (and Wyandottes, the Canadian branch of the Huron nation) themselves wanted.  But before the NCAA even started applying much pressure, the EMU administration caved to the demands of Native American activists (FROM OTHER TRIBES) to defy the wishes of the Hurons themselves.

I wish the Sioux luck in their lawsuit.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 01, 2011, 08:39:06 PM
I think there's another Sioux tribe that opposes the nickname, hence the NCAA issue with it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 01, 2011, 11:41:15 PM
The Sioux are going to sue?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 02, 2011, 12:22:56 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 01, 2011, 08:39:06 PM
I think there's another Sioux tribe that opposes the nickname, hence the NCAA issue with it.
Yes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: CrashDavisD3 on January 27, 2012, 11:04:09 AM
Per NCAA Website 40 percent of NCAA student-athletes compete at Division III institutions but get only 3.18 percent of NCAA operating budget  :-[

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/About+the+NCAA/Who+We+Are/Differences+Among+the+Divisions/Division++III/About+Division+III
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 27, 2012, 02:59:21 PM
But they probably generate about .0318% of the NCAA's operating revenue, so ...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on January 27, 2012, 04:19:04 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 27, 2012, 02:59:21 PM
But they probably generate about .0318% of the NCAA's operating revenue, so ...
But they get featured on the ads that say "most will not be going pro." ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Steve Wiitala on January 28, 2012, 10:05:10 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 27, 2012, 02:59:21 PM
But they probably generate about .0318% of the NCAA's operating revenue, so ...

I thought the purpose of the NCAA was to support and govern intercollegiate athletics, not to make money.  If one part of a non-profit is making money and another isn't, but is part of the mission, it deserves a reasonable level of support.  We've gotten our priorities all messed up.  College athletics is supposed to be a part of a student's education, not the be-all and end-all of it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 108 Stitches on January 28, 2012, 12:19:33 PM
Hey Steve I am not sure what gave you the idea that the NCAA is about the students when you have a multi-billion dollar business, with guys running it making millions of dollars, but the NCAA is NOT about the student athlete. There are a number of good books on the subject. You can start with "Beer and Circus" book. The interesting thing is that nearly 100% of the NCAA's money comes from the D1 basketball tournament and it funds pretty much everything the NCAA does.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 28, 2012, 01:50:18 PM
Quote from: Steve Wiitala on January 28, 2012, 10:05:10 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 27, 2012, 02:59:21 PM
But they probably generate about .0318% of the NCAA's operating revenue, so ...

I thought the purpose of the NCAA was to support and govern intercollegiate athletics, not to make money.  If one part of a non-profit is making money and another isn't, but is part of the mission, it deserves a reasonable level of support.  We've gotten our priorities all messed up.  College athletics is supposed to be a part of a student's education, not the be-all and end-all of it.

If they are spending 3.2% of funds on D3 but recouping less than 1% of that, they're supporting D3 and I would call it a decent level of support.  If they didn't raise massive amounts of funds from D1 sports, they wouldn't have as much to give D3, and I have a hard time telling the AA that they should lose even more money on D3 than they already are. 

Could it be better?   Sure.  But all you have to do is look at the bad old days before Pool A-B-C, when undefeated football teams were left at home because the playoff pool was so small, to realize that it could be worse.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 28, 2012, 06:11:10 PM
40-50 years ago, the NAIA was almost comparable in most sports below the top of University Division NCAA. IN fact, the NAIA champ in most sports would have beaten the College Division champ.

The funding provided by the total organization of the NCAA over 4 decades has permitted the NCAA to grow dramatically in Division FCS, D-II and D-III, and frequently at the expense of the NAIA.

I will bet that 3.18% is pretty close to the contribution to the organization by D-III schools in dues, gate receipts, souvenirs, and revenue from media fees, etc.  If D-III schools were generating 30% more revenue to the NCAA, then I suspect that we would be getting 4.18% of the revenue back.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 28, 2012, 06:15:21 PM
Quote from: 108 Stitches on January 28, 2012, 12:19:33 PM
Hey Steve I am not sure what gave you the idea that the NCAA is about the students when you have a multi-billion dollar business, with guys running it making millions of dollars, but the NCAA is NOT about the student athlete. There are a number of good books on the subject. You can start with "Beer and Circus" book. The interesting thing is that nearly 100% of the NCAA's money comes from the D1 basketball tournament and it funds pretty much everything the NCAA does.
And we are very grateful for that. The newest/current March Madness contract is what permitted D-III to increase the number of Pool C bids offered across all playoffs.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Steve Wiitala on January 28, 2012, 07:38:36 PM
Quote from: 108 Stitches on January 28, 2012, 12:19:33 PM
Hey Steve I am not sure what gave you the idea that the NCAA is about the students when you have a multi-billion dollar business, with guys running it making millions of dollars, but the NCAA is NOT about the student athlete. There are a number of good books on the subject. You can start with "Beer and Circus" book. The interesting thing is that nearly 100% of the NCAA's money comes from the D1 basketball tournament and it funds pretty much everything the NCAA does.

There is definitely a gap between what they say they are, which is what I stated, and what they actually do.

In the sport that interests me, which is hockey, it seems like we get the short end of the stick, so to speak. The tournament procedures, create totally illogical situations with seedings and match ups based totally on the NCAA's dictates about minimizing flights.  That issue seems to impact other sports a lot less.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 28, 2012, 08:14:01 PM
Don't ask the folks in TX and CA about football (and basketball) seedings, then, Steve.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2012, 12:02:49 AM
Quote from: smedindy on January 28, 2012, 08:14:01 PM
Don't ask the folks in TX and CA about football (and basketball) seedings, then, Steve.
Or an undefeated Mississippi College team having to fly for a Sweet 16 game rather than 3 teams with worse records being sent to Clinton MS or a #1 Trinity TX Men's soccer team going on the road after the first weekend.


.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2012, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 28, 2012, 08:14:01 PM
Don't ask the folks in TX and CA about football (and basketball) seedings, then, Steve.

Yes -- it happens in football and basketball a lot. Hockey is nowhere near alone on this.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Steve Wiitala on January 29, 2012, 03:42:56 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2012, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 28, 2012, 08:14:01 PM
Don't ask the folks in TX and CA about football (and basketball) seedings, then, Steve.

Yes -- it happens in football and basketball a lot. Hockey is nowhere near alone on this.

Thus my point that a bit more in the way of financial support from the NCAA for DIII championships would make things fairer.  I wasn't sure about other sports - I kind of suspected that was the case, and knew that there was a lot of teeth being gnashed because of the Pool A slot that went to the ECFC last year.  Norwich was excited by it, but it appears that they had the big in a small pond thrown into the shark tank kind of effect. 

The travel restrictions and directive to minimize flights are thorns to hockey fans (visit us at D3hockey.com) as we try to figure out how the post season will evolve.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 30, 2012, 05:44:48 PM
Quote from: Steve Wiitala on January 29, 2012, 03:42:56 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2012, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 28, 2012, 08:14:01 PM
Don't ask the folks in TX and CA about football (and basketball) seedings, then, Steve.

Yes -- it happens in football and basketball a lot. Hockey is nowhere near alone on this.

Thus my point that a bit more in the way of financial support from the NCAA for DIII championships would make things fairer.  I wasn't sure about other sports - I kind of suspected that was the case, and knew that there was a lot of teeth being gnashed because of the Pool A slot that went to the ECFC last year.  Norwich was excited by it, but it appears that they had the big in a small pond thrown into the shark tank kind of effect. 

The travel restrictions and directive to minimize flights are thorns to hockey fans (visit us at D3hockey.com) as we try to figure out how the post season will evolve.
Thanks for your comments.

For all practical purposes, the ECFC slot came about because D-III schools saw a way to offer a competitive football experience with peer/member institutions, and so they added football.

Lots more football opportunities for student-athletes.

I attribute some of the growth in lacrosse to the Pool A structure that offers a bid to a member conference that fulfills the criteria.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on January 30, 2012, 08:20:31 PM
D3 is asking for handouts for all of their tournaments. I highly doubt any of them cover the costs associated with the flights the NCAA does allow. It's always nice to suggest that putting two hands out would get you more money, but really, beggars can't be choosers. The NCAA D1 basketball tournament allows for an awful lot of good things to happen in a lot of areas that it has limited benefit in supporting. While there are lots of ways to make things "fairer" for D3 tournaments with unlimited money, it's real nice just to have the large amounts of money we already receive to make these tournaments happen at all.

Of course, we can always hope the NCAA gets control over D1 football and decides to share some of that wealth as well. I don't see it happening, but one can always hope.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 31, 2012, 07:27:33 AM

D3 really can't be complaining about this.  Once the big football schools get their act together and leave the NCAA completely, the revenue will dry up and d3 will be left having to pay for their own post-season, something a lot of schools just won't do.

We've got it good right now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 108 Stitches on January 31, 2012, 12:07:41 PM
Hoops get your factst straight. The NCAA gets ALL of it's money from the basketball playoff's and they have signed a 10 year contract. ZERO (or nearly $0) comes in from football. This is all conference and school money. This is why none of the schools support a playoff structure that will impact the bowl money. (which is a completely different discussion)

The NCAA funds the DIII playoff's and frankly I don't know how much of this comes from the basketball money. Schools pay fees to the NCAA and I am not sure how much of this goes toward these costs vs the administrative costs. Someone here is probably much more knowledgeable about this than I am and can probably shed some light on it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on January 31, 2012, 01:28:51 PM
Quote from: 108 Stitches on January 31, 2012, 12:07:41 PM
Hoops get your factst straight. The NCAA gets ALL of it's money from the basketball playoff's and they have signed a 10 year contract. ZERO (or nearly $0) comes in from football. This is all conference and school money. This is why none of the schools support a playoff structure that will impact the bowl money. (which is a completely different discussion)

The NCAA funds the DIII playoff's and frankly I don't know how much of this comes from the basketball money. Schools pay fees to the NCAA and I am not sure how much of this goes toward these costs vs the administrative costs. Someone here is probably much more knowledgeable about this than I am and can probably shed some light on it.

How long will it be until those football schools start questioning why their basketball teams are paying for the rest of the NCAA schools? The top men's basketball teams are generally BCS football playing schools. There hasn't been a non-BCS school that has won the men's basketball national championship since UNLV in 1990. Those BCS schools are what drive the March Madness dollars. Why split them with the rest of the NCAA? They take evrything in football, why not men's basketball as well. If the NCAA kicks out the rest of their sports just run your own tourney for themselves and no one else.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 31, 2012, 01:31:21 PM
Quote from: 108 Stitches on January 31, 2012, 12:07:41 PM
Hoops get your factst straight. The NCAA gets ALL of it's money from the basketball playoff's and they have signed a 10 year contract. ZERO (or nearly $0) comes in from football. This is all conference and school money. This is why none of the schools support a playoff structure that will impact the bowl money. (which is a completely different discussion)

I know this, but football is driving the revenue machine.  Pretty soon, they'll figure out which 64 teams are in and separate from the NCAA.  They'll have their own football playoff and a convenient 64 team basketball tournament.  They'll draw all the revenue away from the NCAA, which might be able to survive on the remaining schools, but certainly not to the level where they'll be willing to shell out for championships in sports (and divisions) that don't turn a profit.

This is the way things have been going for a while.  It's why UCONN ramped up its football program and why Villanova is working hard to get it's program into the FBS.  Schools with basketball and not football are going to be left out - even some with football will be left out.

It's already beginning.  With the Big-10, PAC-12, SEC, and ACC there's only twelve spots left (ten if you count the inevitable Texas and ND inclusions).

D3 sports will face a real eye opener when their cash cow is gone.  We need to be grateful for what we've got.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 31, 2012, 03:17:34 PM
I cannot see them killing the current NCAA tourney. The reason it's compelling is the mid-major vs. big guy in the first round and the stories that carry through. It's not Auburn vs. UConn in the first round of the 'huge 64'.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 31, 2012, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 31, 2012, 03:17:34 PM
I cannot see them killing the current NCAA tourney. The reason it's compelling is the mid-major vs. big guy in the first round and the stories that carry through. It's not Auburn vs. UConn in the first round of the 'huge 64'.

They'll still get the same money and now it will go directly to the schools and not to the NCAA.  Purely a financial decision.  This is not a sentimental group.

People can still make out pools and they'll still watch the games.  I agree that it won't be as special, but it will still make money - that's why they're doing it.

But truly football is running the show.  Even a school like Kentucky, with terrible football and incredible basketball is making way more from football.  The schools will do what's best for football and basketball will come along for the ($1billion) ride.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: 108 Stitches on January 31, 2012, 05:09:20 PM
Football will continue to drive things at the conference level and the growth of these associations. (Pac-xx, etc) This is driven by TV money, and in season revenue of course will flow back to the conferences and institutions It is not going to change how the NCAA runs the basketball tournament. It is already contracted for many, many years and runs quite well. This will not change for quite some time.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 31, 2012, 06:15:55 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 31, 2012, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 31, 2012, 03:17:34 PM
I cannot see them killing the current NCAA tourney. The reason it's compelling is the mid-major vs. big guy in the first round and the stories that carry through. It's not Auburn vs. UConn in the first round of the 'huge 64'.

They'll still get the same money and now it will go directly to the schools and not to the NCAA.  Purely a financial decision.  This is not a sentimental group.

People can still make out pools and they'll still watch the games.  I agree that it won't be as special, but it will still make money - that's why they're doing it.

But truly football is running the show.  Even a school like Kentucky, with terrible football and incredible basketball is making way more from football.  The schools will do what's best for football and basketball will come along for the ($1billion) ride.

I disagree. The networks are contracted with the NCAA, not the schools. The networks won't touch the tourney without the NCAA sanctioning.

Also, they must realize that 15 of the Top 50 schools as ranked by RPI, Sagarin and Pomeroy are not of the Power conferences.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 01, 2012, 10:56:04 AM
Quote from: smedindy on January 31, 2012, 06:15:55 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 31, 2012, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 31, 2012, 03:17:34 PM
I cannot see them killing the current NCAA tourney. The reason it's compelling is the mid-major vs. big guy in the first round and the stories that carry through. It's not Auburn vs. UConn in the first round of the 'huge 64'.

They'll still get the same money and now it will go directly to the schools and not to the NCAA.  Purely a financial decision.  This is not a sentimental group.

People can still make out pools and they'll still watch the games.  I agree that it won't be as special, but it will still make money - that's why they're doing it.

But truly football is running the show.  Even a school like Kentucky, with terrible football and incredible basketball is making way more from football.  The schools will do what's best for football and basketball will come along for the ($1billion) ride.

I disagree. The networks are contracted with the NCAA, not the schools. The networks won't touch the tourney without the NCAA sanctioning.

Also, they must realize that 15 of the Top 50 schools as ranked by RPI, Sagarin and Pomeroy are not of the Power conferences.

But how fast will that change once the big 64 separate.  The recruits those mid-major schools are getting will dry up.  And, if the big 64 decide to keep everything separate, we'll never be able to see them compared on the floor.

When they leave the NCAA, they'll set up their own governing body- with all the legitimacy (or lack thereof) that the NCAA possesses.

Believe me, I've been through five years of denial on this one.  Money wins out.

The chips will fall as soon as Texas and ND want them to fall.  Once they agree to moves to one of the big four conferences, everything else falls into place right away.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 02, 2012, 07:24:11 PM
A little help coming for Pool B in basketball, volleyball, soccer and football.

Presentation College in South Dakota is leaving the UMAC to become an independent
http://www.pcsaints.com/news/2012/2/1/GEN_0201120436.aspx
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 03, 2012, 01:19:29 AM
Something in their statement confuses me. Following up with the UMAC office.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 03, 2012, 08:20:23 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 03, 2012, 01:19:29 AM
Something in their statement confuses me. Following up with the UMAC office.

Like how they seem to think they can field less sports and play less games?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 03, 2012, 09:56:26 AM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 02, 2012, 07:24:11 PM
A little help coming for Pool B in basketball, volleyball, soccer and football.

Presentation College in South Dakota is leaving the UMAC to become an independent
http://www.pcsaints.com/news/2012/2/1/GEN_0201120436.aspx
My thought is that the sport is having trouble getting enough students and student-athletes to compete in the various sports offered by the conference.  My next concern and hope is that the school is not having trouble getting students to keep the doors open.  This is a tough economy. I'll bet that the student body is from humble working middle class backgrounds.  (No slam against that.  That is my background.)

The move to football was to gain students.  Soccer doesn't bring in that many students.
The school will need to have 5 sports, 3 team sports and 3 seasons.  Soccer is extra if you have football/volleyball and M/W XC in the fall. M/W hoops in the winter and baseball/softball in the spring, plus M/W golf.

Yes, they can offer M/W soccer, but if they have to postpone or forfeit games, then they don't hurt their colleagues in the "conference".

When their situation has stabliized, I am sure that the UMAC will accept them again as a full member.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 20, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
Cited in "What We Are Reading" on the front page of D3baseball.com


http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2012/04/18/1163624

QuoteThe conference's two largest schools, Christopher Newport and Shenandoah, are moving to the Capital Athletic Conference and Old Dominion Athletic Conference, respectively. CNU, the only state-supported institution in the league, will remain a football-only member of the USA South for up to three seasons while the Capital adds the sport.

They will be replaced by three colleges from the Great South Conference: LaGrange and Piedmont in Georgia, and Maryville in eastern Tennessee. Peace College in Raleigh, a league member in women's athletics, has gone coed as William Peace University and will phase in men's sports over the next three years. Wiggs said she expects the USA South presidents to approve in May the addition of two other Great South schools, Huntingdon College in Montgomery, Ala., and Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Ga.

Great News for the GSAC Men's programs...

What that does for the co-ed schools in the GSAC is another matter.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 03, 2012, 12:49:55 AM
Catching  up on what has happened in the D-III

Link (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2012/February/DIII+panel+suggests+consequences+for+not+meeting+conference+requirements)

QuoteExploratory schools

While this meeting was not one in which the Membership Committee evaluated potential new members' progress toward active status (that will occur in June), it did accept requests from the following four institutions to conduct an exploratory year beginning on Sept. 1, 2012:

    Alfred State College (Alfred, N.Y.)
    Berea College (Berea, Ky.)
    Illinois Institute of Technology (Chicago, Ill.)
    Iowa Wesleyan College (Mt. Pleasant, Iowa)

Five other schools are conducting an exploratory year in 2011-12. They are:

    State University of New York at Canton (Canton, N.Y.)
    Houghton College (Houghton, N.Y.)
    Sarah Lawrence College (Bronxville, N.Y.)
    Southern Virginia University (Buena Vista, Va.)
    Valley Forge Christian College (Phoenixville, Pa.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: KnightSlappy on May 04, 2012, 11:34:47 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 20, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
Cited in "What We Are Reading" on the front page of D3baseball.com


http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2012/04/18/1163624

QuoteThe conference's two largest schools, Christopher Newport and Shenandoah, are moving to the Capital Athletic Conference and Old Dominion Athletic Conference, respectively. CNU, the only state-supported institution in the league, will remain a football-only member of the USA South for up to three seasons while the Capital adds the sport.

They will be replaced by three colleges from the Great South Conference: LaGrange and Piedmont in Georgia, and Maryville in eastern Tennessee. Peace College in Raleigh, a league member in women's athletics, has gone coed as William Peace University and will phase in men's sports over the next three years. Wiggs said she expects the USA South presidents to approve in May the addition of two other Great South schools, Huntingdon College in Montgomery, Ala., and Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Ga.

Great News for the GSAC Men's programs...

What that does for the co-ed schools in the GSAC is another matter.

So the newly minted William Peace men's basketball team will be a full D3 member for next season (no provisional status needed). Is this correct?

http://www.peace.edu/content/page/id/1292
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 04, 2012, 02:20:27 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on May 04, 2012, 11:34:47 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 20, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
Cited in "What We Are Reading" on the front page of D3baseball.com


http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2012/04/18/1163624

QuoteThe conference's two largest schools, Christopher Newport and Shenandoah, are moving to the Capital Athletic Conference and Old Dominion Athletic Conference, respectively. CNU, the only state-supported institution in the league, will remain a football-only member of the USA South for up to three seasons while the Capital adds the sport.

They will be replaced by three colleges from the Great South Conference: LaGrange and Piedmont in Georgia, and Maryville in eastern Tennessee. Peace College in Raleigh, a league member in women's athletics, has gone coed as William Peace University and will phase in men's sports over the next three years. Wiggs said she expects the USA South presidents to approve in May the addition of two other Great South schools, Huntingdon College in Montgomery, Ala., and Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Ga.

Great News for the GSAC Men's programs...

What that does for the co-ed schools in the GSAC is another matter.

So the newly minted William Peace men's basketball team will be a full D3 member for next season (no provisional status needed). Is this correct?

http://www.peace.edu/content/page/id/1292
I believe so.  "Randolph Women's" did not have to go thru a provisional period when "Randolph College" added their men's teams.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 05, 2012, 08:26:56 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on May 04, 2012, 11:34:47 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 20, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
Cited in "What We Are Reading" on the front page of D3baseball.com


http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2012/04/18/1163624

QuoteThe conference's two largest schools, Christopher Newport and Shenandoah, are moving to the Capital Athletic Conference and Old Dominion Athletic Conference, respectively. CNU, the only state-supported institution in the league, will remain a football-only member of the USA South for up to three seasons while the Capital adds the sport.

They will be replaced by three colleges from the Great South Conference: LaGrange and Piedmont in Georgia, and Maryville in eastern Tennessee. Peace College in Raleigh, a league member in women's athletics, has gone coed as William Peace University and will phase in men's sports over the next three years. Wiggs said she expects the USA South presidents to approve in May the addition of two other Great South schools, Huntingdon College in Montgomery, Ala., and Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Ga.

Great News for the GSAC Men's programs...

What that does for the co-ed schools in the GSAC is another matter.

So the newly minted William Peace men's basketball team will be a full D3 member for next season (no provisional status needed). Is this correct?

http://www.peace.edu/content/page/id/1292

That's correct. Provisional status is conferred on a school, not an individual program at the school. William/Peace is a full member of D-III, so any intercollegiate sport would be eligible.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: KnightSlappy on May 06, 2012, 06:22:06 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 05, 2012, 08:26:56 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on May 04, 2012, 11:34:47 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 20, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
Cited in "What We Are Reading" on the front page of D3baseball.com


http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2012/04/18/1163624

QuoteThe conference's two largest schools, Christopher Newport and Shenandoah, are moving to the Capital Athletic Conference and Old Dominion Athletic Conference, respectively. CNU, the only state-supported institution in the league, will remain a football-only member of the USA South for up to three seasons while the Capital adds the sport.

They will be replaced by three colleges from the Great South Conference: LaGrange and Piedmont in Georgia, and Maryville in eastern Tennessee. Peace College in Raleigh, a league member in women's athletics, has gone coed as William Peace University and will phase in men's sports over the next three years. Wiggs said she expects the USA South presidents to approve in May the addition of two other Great South schools, Huntingdon College in Montgomery, Ala., and Covenant College in Lookout Mountain, Ga.

Great News for the GSAC Men's programs...

What that does for the co-ed schools in the GSAC is another matter.

So the newly minted William Peace men's basketball team will be a full D3 member for next season (no provisional status needed). Is this correct?

http://www.peace.edu/content/page/id/1292

That's correct. Provisional status is conferred on a school, not an individual program at the school. William/Peace is a full member of D-III, so any intercollegiate sport would be eligible.

And so I'm guessing they're granted some sort of waiver for not meeting the minimum number of men's sports right away?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 06, 2012, 08:07:30 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on May 06, 2012, 06:22:06 PM


And so I'm guessing they're granted some sort of waiver for not meeting the minimum number of men's sports right away?
Every school that I can remember going co-ed had a timetable for adding sports...

Wilson and Randolph come to mind.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jeffconn on May 18, 2012, 12:07:11 PM
As most of you already know, it was made official last week. Both Covenant and Huntingdon join USA South in 2013-2014. That leaves the Great South with just 4 women's colleges:

http://www.usasouth.net/general/2011-12/12huntingdonjoin
http://www.usasouth.net/general/2011-12/12covenantjoin

Salem College shouldn't have any issues finding a conference to join. Salem would be a good geographic fit for the ODAC or USA South, both which already have women's colleges. What will happen to Spelman, Wesleyan, and Agnes Scott? The 3 Atlanta area schools could go to USA South or the SAA, but would either conference want to add 3 women's colleges?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on May 18, 2012, 02:23:48 PM
Maranatha Baptist is leaving the Northern Athletics Conference after the 2012-2013 season but remain in Division III.

http://more.mbbc.edu/crusader/mens-soccer/maranatha-to-withdraw-from-northern-athletics-conference/


The NAthCon will have 11 schools for men's sports and 12 schools for women's sports so I don't believe they are in danger of losing their AQ in any sports. Football, however, will be down to 7 teams. (Finlandia needs a home. 300 miles north of the closest member.)

The press release states that Maranatha Baptist will be looking for a new conference. But who? They are in Southeastern Wisconsin. The Midwest Conference won't take them, they are a University of Wisconsin school, they could barely compete in the NAthCon so the CCIW is out. The UMAC is a stretch. From a competitive stand point Maranatha Baptist could blend in and they used to play in the UMAC for football before the NAthCon started sponsoring football. The UMAC just lost Presentation so they could be looking for another full member but I would think North Central University in the Twin Cities would be a better choice due to geography  (Watertown to St. Paul is almost 300 miles) and NCU is already an associate member in a few sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 18, 2012, 04:45:43 PM
I think that Maranatha will compete in the NCCAA and remain as an NCAA independent.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on May 18, 2012, 05:01:58 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on May 18, 2012, 04:45:43 PM
I think that Maranatha will compete in the NCCAA and remain as an NCAA independent.

If the NAthCon doesn't add anyone, football schedule could be taken care of the same way as Chapman took care of theirs before joining the SCIAC. Play as the bye opponent for each NAthCon team on their conference schedule.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on May 31, 2012, 10:05:21 AM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on May 18, 2012, 05:01:58 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on May 18, 2012, 04:45:43 PM
I think that Maranatha will compete in the NCCAA and remain as an NCAA independent.

If the NAthCon doesn't add anyone, football schedule could be taken care of the same way as Chapman took care of theirs before joining the SCIAC. Play as the bye opponent for each NAthCon team on their conference schedule.

I don't think all 7 NathCon schools would be willing to play Maranatha anymore. I think most of the football programs are glad to have them off the schedule.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: doolittledog on May 31, 2012, 04:34:25 PM
The SLIAC has 4 schools that play football in the UMAC.  Would it make more sense for them to try to play in the NATHCON? 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 01, 2012, 12:43:51 AM
Quote from: doolittledog on May 31, 2012, 04:34:25 PM
The SLIAC has 4 schools that play football in the UMAC.  Would it make more sense for them to try to play in the NATHCON?
It might end up that way when the UMAC has enough schools for its own AQ, and not needing affiliates to get to 7, or adding Finlandia as the affiliate, which is closer than the Missouri affiilates.

With the NATHCON not playing out of conference games with 11 full an affiliate members, the OWP/OOWP of several North Region teams would take a hit!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on June 01, 2012, 01:20:29 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 01, 2012, 12:43:51 AM
Quote from: doolittledog on May 31, 2012, 04:34:25 PM
The SLIAC has 4 schools that play football in the UMAC.  Would it make more sense for them to try to play in the NATHCON?
It might end up that way when the UMAC has enough schools for its own AQ, and not needing affiliates to get to 7, or adding Finlandia as the affiliate, which is closer than the Missouri affiilates.

With the NATHCON not playing out of conference games with 11 full an affiliate members, the OWP/OOWP of several North Region teams would take a hit!

The Midwest Conference is playing a crazy nine game conference schedule with eleven teams this year. Each team gets a non-conference game (this will preserve the Coe-Cornell rivalry game). Except for Lawrence who is playing St. Norbert as a non-conference game but it will count as a conference game for St. Norbert.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 01, 2012, 04:33:55 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on June 01, 2012, 01:20:29 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 01, 2012, 12:43:51 AM
Quote from: doolittledog on May 31, 2012, 04:34:25 PM
The SLIAC has 4 schools that play football in the UMAC.  Would it make more sense for them to try to play in the NATHCON?
It might end up that way when the UMAC has enough schools for its own AQ, and not needing affiliates to get to 7, or adding Finlandia as the affiliate, which is closer than the Missouri affiilates.

With the NATHCON not playing out of conference games with 11 full an affiliate members, the OWP/OOWP of several North Region teams would take a hit!

The Midwest Conference is playing a crazy nine game conference schedule with eleven teams this year. Each team gets a non-conference game (this will preserve the Coe-Cornell rivalry game). Except for Lawrence who is playing St. Norbert as a non-conference game but it will count as a conference game for St. Norbert.
Reminds me of the 11-member football MAC in the early 2000's...

Does the 11-member MWC play double round robin 20 game schedule in basketball and leave 2 non-conference games in their 22 game schedules?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on June 01, 2012, 06:08:36 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 01, 2012, 04:33:55 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on June 01, 2012, 01:20:29 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 01, 2012, 12:43:51 AM
Quote from: doolittledog on May 31, 2012, 04:34:25 PM
The SLIAC has 4 schools that play football in the UMAC.  Would it make more sense for them to try to play in the NATHCON?
It might end up that way when the UMAC has enough schools for its own AQ, and not needing affiliates to get to 7, or adding Finlandia as the affiliate, which is closer than the Missouri affiilates.

With the NATHCON not playing out of conference games with 11 full an affiliate members, the OWP/OOWP of several North Region teams would take a hit!

The Midwest Conference is playing a crazy nine game conference schedule with eleven teams this year. Each team gets a non-conference game (this will preserve the Coe-Cornell rivalry game). Except for Lawrence who is playing St. Norbert as a non-conference game but it will count as a conference game for St. Norbert.
Reminds me of the 11-member football MAC in the early 2000's...

Does the 11-member MWC play double round robin 20 game schedule in basketball and leave 2 non-conference games in their 22 game schedules?

It's gonna be 18 game non-full double round-robin with two teams at random not being played twice. As far as I know there aren't any protected rivalries either.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 18, 2012, 10:54:22 AM
Only slightly related but D-II has had some conference shuffling as well. Here's some new movement:

http://www.wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=53329

Nine football-playing members of the West Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (WVIAC) will withdraw from the league to form a new regional all-sports conference.  The new, yet to be named league, will consist of 12 schools from West Virginia and surrounding states.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 08, 2012, 08:44:07 PM
These (http://abingtonsports.com/news/2012/6/28/ncaastory_1234.aspx) are the new full members that I have found for 2012-13.

Penn State-Abington  (NEAC)
SUNY-Cobleskill           (NEAC)
Spaulding                   (SLIAC)

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: KnightSlappy on July 13, 2012, 04:17:16 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 08, 2012, 08:44:07 PM
These (http://abingtonsports.com/news/2012/6/28/ncaastory_1234.aspx) are the new full members that I have found for 2012-13.

Penn State-Abington  (NEAC)
SUNY-Cobleskill           (NEAC)
Spaulding                   (SLIAC)

That's now confirmed by the NCAA (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2012/july/new+members+for+2012+13+could+include+associations+first+canadian+school)

No word yet on which schools have been moved to year one of the exploratory process.

I have:

Houghton
Georgetown
Kentucky Wesleyan
Sarah Lawrence
Southern Virginia
SUNY-Canton
Valley Forge Christian

As exploratory year members last season. (From what I've heard, Georgetown is definitely out).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on July 13, 2012, 06:46:01 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on July 13, 2012, 04:17:16 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 08, 2012, 08:44:07 PM
These (http://abingtonsports.com/news/2012/6/28/ncaastory_1234.aspx) are the new full members that I have found for 2012-13.

Penn State-Abington  (NEAC)
SUNY-Cobleskill           (NEAC)
Spaulding                   (SLIAC)

That's now confirmed by the NCAA (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2012/july/new+members+for+2012+13+could+include+associations+first+canadian+school)

No word yet on which schools have been moved to year one of the exploratory process.

I have:

Houghton
Georgetown
Kentucky Wesleyan
Sarah Lawrence
Southern Virginia
SUNY-Canton
Valley Forge Christian

As exploratory year members last season. (From what I've heard, Georgetown is definitely out).

Kentucky Wesleyan is leading the creation of the new Great Midwest Athletic Conference in Division II so I doubt they are moving to Division III anytime soon.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 14, 2012, 10:29:58 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on July 13, 2012, 04:17:16 PM

No word yet on which schools have been moved to year one of the exploratory process.

I have:

Houghton                                          Empire 8
Georgetown
Kentucky Wesleyan
Sarah Lawrence                                   Traditional Eastern Liberal Arts Colleges in D-III
Southern Virginia                                 Capital AC (football schools especially)
SUNY-Canton                                      Upstate NY/SUNY's/North East AC/M&W Ice hockey/Advocates of kangaroos {Austin College TX?}
Valley Forge Christian                            Not sure who "wants" them

As exploratory year members last season. (From what I've heard, Georgetown is definitely out).
I can imagine "advocates" for the above colleges.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: CKBeber329 on July 20, 2012, 08:54:33 AM
Will the NCAA release what schools moved up in the membership process?  I know that they released an article for the three that became members, but what about the ones in the provisional process?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: KnightSlappy on July 20, 2012, 02:45:01 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 14, 2012, 10:29:58 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on July 13, 2012, 04:17:16 PM

No word yet on which schools have been moved to year one of the exploratory process.

I have:

Houghton                                          Empire 8
Georgetown
Kentucky Wesleyan
Sarah Lawrence                                   Traditional Eastern Liberal Arts Colleges in D-III
Southern Virginia                                 Capital AC (football schools especially)
SUNY-Canton                                      Upstate NY/SUNY's/North East AC/M&W Ice hockey/Advocates of kangaroos {Austin College TX?}
Valley Forge Christian                            Not sure who "wants" them

As exploratory year members last season. (From what I've heard, Georgetown is definitely out).
I can imagine "advocates" for the above colleges.

Houghton has announced themselves as a year-one provisional. The article also mentions that they have joined the Empire 8. I don't know if this had been made official before or not. http://www.houghton.edu/news/archive.php?p=6434

SUNY-Canton had already announced they were moving to year one as well. I don't remember if this had been posted or not: http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20120628/SPORTS03/706289919
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hampton U SID on July 25, 2012, 06:11:52 PM
Quote from: CKBeber329 on July 20, 2012, 08:54:33 AM
Will the NCAA release what schools moved up in the membership process?  I know that they released an article for the three that became members, but what about the ones in the provisional process?

Well it appears they're slowly letting that word out as Southern Virginia was put in the pipeline
http://athletics.svu.edu/about/news/2012-13/dIII-provisional-membership
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: KnightSlappy on August 10, 2012, 02:43:19 PM
And now Sarah Lawrence and Valley Forge Christian are saying that they're in as well.

http://www.slc.edu/news-events/news/2012-08-08-sarah-lawrence-athletics-nr.html

http://www.vfccpatriots.com/sports/2012/8/9/GEN_0809121950.aspx?tab=compliance

That makes five new provisional members: Houghton, Sarah Lawrence, Valley Forge Christian, SUNY-Canton, and Southern Virginia
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on August 10, 2012, 08:54:54 PM
+1 For the info Knight...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jeffconn on September 08, 2012, 02:20:00 AM
The Great South Athletic Conference actually added two schools in the last few weeks. The independent Trinity Washington University, out of DC, and Pine Manor College, from Chestnut Hill, Mass. Pine Manor left the Great Northeast Athletic Conference just last week.

http://www.greatsouth.org/news/2012/8/27/GEN_0827122836.aspx
http://www.greatsouth.org/news/2012/9/7/GEN_0907121421.aspx

After Covenant and Huntingdon leave for USA South in 2013, that will leave the GSAC with 6 women's colleges. Add 1 or 2 more women's colleges and they might just survive after all.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 20, 2013, 09:43:28 PM
So, do these schools have the budget for this kind of travel?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 21, 2013, 12:05:16 AM
They won't travel for regular season games, surely. But they'll need to have a postseason tournament.

For some of these teams, it will replace an Independents tournament they had been traveling to.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on January 22, 2013, 10:58:00 PM
Great South gets even bigger in numbers and geography:

http://www.greatsouth.org/news/2013/1/14/SB_0114131528.aspx?path=wsoc

Finlandia (Mich. in da U.P. der hey!)
Mills (Oakland, Calif.)
Maine-Presque Isle

Maine to Georgia to Michigan to California? You win GSAC, you win.

I'm assuming they won't play a regular season schedule, they'll just get together for the most unusual post-season tournament in the country. The GSAC will already be including Finlandia for softball this spring.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 22, 2013, 11:32:24 PM
This isn't a conference, it's a joke.  If you're not playing each other except in a tournament it hardly seems D3ish. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on January 22, 2013, 11:39:34 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on January 22, 2013, 10:58:00 PM
Great South gets even bigger in numbers and geography:

http://www.greatsouth.org/news/2013/1/14/SB_0114131528.aspx?path=wsoc

Finlandia (Mich. in da U.P. der hey!)
Mills (Oakland, Calif.)
Maine-Presque Isle

Maine to Georgia to Michigan to California? You win GSAC, you win.

I'm assuming they won't play a regular season schedule, they'll just get together for the most unusual post-season tournament in the country. The GSAC will already be including Finlandia for softball this spring.
When are they going to add men's sports?  Rename it the Title IX Conference. ::)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on January 22, 2013, 11:40:52 PM
Maybe they can convince Simon Fraser from British Columbia, Canada to switch from D2 to D3 and join their "conference". :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 22, 2013, 11:44:29 PM
As the old cry goes: "The South shall rise again"!! ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 22, 2013, 11:58:31 PM
Great.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 23, 2013, 12:12:04 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on January 22, 2013, 11:39:34 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on January 22, 2013, 10:58:00 PM
Great South gets even bigger in numbers and geography:

http://www.greatsouth.org/news/2013/1/14/SB_0114131528.aspx?path=wsoc

Finlandia (Mich. in da U.P. der hey!)
Mills (Oakland, Calif.)
Maine-Presque Isle

Maine to Georgia to Michigan to California? You win GSAC, you win.

I'm assuming they won't play a regular season schedule, they'll just get together for the most unusual post-season tournament in the country. The GSAC will already be including Finlandia for softball this spring.
When are they going to add men's sports?  Rename it the Title IX Conference. ::)
Covenant and Huntingdon depart for the USA South next year.  Spelman gave up intercollegiate athletics.

It really depletes Pool B. In fact, it is almost the de facto Pool B "play-in" tournament.

I wonder if we won't see a few more Pool B women's teams migrate into the GSAC.  Rust?  UC Santa Cruz?  New Rochelle?  Presentation may not have the budget.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 23, 2013, 12:15:10 AM
What sports will Mills bring?  V'ball, Soccer and Tennis?

(Rowing, XC and Swimming are  the other sports that they offer at Mills.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 23, 2013, 12:39:52 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 23, 2013, 12:15:10 AM
What sports will Mills bring?  V'ball, Soccer and Tennis?

(Rowing, XC and Swimming are  the other sports that they offer at Mills.)

I'll assume that is budgetary.  With the possible exception of rowing (those boats ain't cheap!) those are probably the least expensive sports one can offer.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on January 23, 2013, 11:20:04 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on January 22, 2013, 10:58:00 PM
Great South gets even bigger in numbers and geography:

http://www.greatsouth.org/news/2013/1/14/SB_0114131528.aspx?path=wsoc

Finlandia (Mich. in da U.P. der hey!)
Mills (Oakland, Calif.)
Maine-Presque Isle

Maine to Georgia to Michigan to California? You win GSAC, you win.

I'm assuming they won't play a regular season schedule, they'll just get together for the most unusual post-season tournament in the country. The GSAC will already be including Finlandia for softball this spring.

Are they following the Big East model of conference re-alignment? They are the Division III version of the Great West Conference.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 23, 2013, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 23, 2013, 12:15:10 AM
What sports will Mills bring?  V'ball, Soccer and Tennis?

(Rowing, XC and Swimming are  the other sports that they offer at Mills.)

I didn't think that there was any college in America that played intercollegiate sports that didn't have a basketball team.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Steve Wiitala on January 23, 2013, 10:32:43 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 22, 2013, 11:32:24 PM
This isn't a conference, it's a joke.  If you're not playing each other except in a tournament it hardly seems D3ish.

Is that even allowed.  It seems like they could all just be independent and play in an independent's tournament.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 23, 2013, 10:43:23 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 23, 2013, 05:43:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 23, 2013, 12:15:10 AM
What sports will Mills bring?  V'ball, Soccer and Tennis?

(Rowing, XC and Swimming are  the other sports that they offer at Mills.)

I didn't think that there was any college in America that played intercollegiate sports that didn't have a basketball team.
Northwood Institute (NAIA) in Dallas and Dallas Baptist men's and women (D-2) are two more.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 23, 2013, 11:25:32 PM
Quote from: Steve Wiitala on January 23, 2013, 10:32:43 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 22, 2013, 11:32:24 PM
This isn't a conference, it's a joke.  If you're not playing each other except in a tournament it hardly seems D3ish.

Is that even allowed.

Of course it is. How a conference runs its schedule is its own affair. That's why the NESCAC, for instance, only plays a single round-robin in basketball, and does not participate in the post-season in football.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 23, 2013, 11:26:09 PM
Quote from: Steve Wiitala on January 23, 2013, 10:32:43 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 22, 2013, 11:32:24 PM
This isn't a conference, it's a joke.  If you're not playing each other except in a tournament it hardly seems D3ish.

Is that even allowed.  It seems like they could all just be independent and play in an independent's tournament.

It's allowed (why is another matter).  The Univ of Dallas used to participate in the NEAC as a tourney participant only.  The advantage of doing it this way is that the conference, if it has enough schools, earns automatic playoff bids.  Not so for an independent tournament.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 24, 2013, 12:15:30 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 23, 2013, 11:26:09 PMThe advantage of doing it this way is that the conference, if it has enough schools, earns automatic playoff bids.  Not so for an independent tournament.

That's true, although in some sports the Pool B field is now so small that it honestly doesn't make any difference one way or the other. But there may be sports in which that is not the case.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 24, 2013, 09:50:42 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 24, 2013, 12:15:30 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 23, 2013, 11:26:09 PMThe advantage of doing it this way is that the conference, if it has enough schools, earns automatic playoff bids.  Not so for an independent tournament.

That's true, although in some sports the Pool B field is now so small that it honestly doesn't make any difference one way or the other. But there may be sports in which that is not the case.
What the manuever for UDallas did was to permit the NEAC to hold onto its Pool A bid while it added schools that were in the provisional period.

If we look at the history of the NEAC, it has been the conference that spawned other successful programs that have migrated to other conferences.  The NEAC gave them their start.  The NEAC had 5 members back about 8-10 years ago.  Now it is up to 13.

The women's in the south and east need some help.  A conference gives structure and stability to the programs. I don't have a problem with what the GSAC is doing.

Mills has been an orphan.  Trinity DC was in the old Atlantic Women's CC before it disbanded.

GSAC Men never took off and finally they just moved into the USA South.

I can understand how this stabilizes these women's conferences.  It is drawing down from Pool B, which is almost below the threshhold for 1 bid in several sports anyway.  The less competitive schools now have access thru the conference tourney to the NCAA post-season tourney.  Inside Pool B, their season might otherwise be over after 10 games with no hope if they improve.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on January 24, 2013, 10:02:41 AM
I believe the NAIA runs (or used to run) an independent tournament that actually grants a bid to the national tournament just like an AQ conference would. I think that's a pretty good model actually, assuming their are at least 7 independents who would be willing to do it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on January 24, 2013, 12:20:01 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on January 24, 2013, 10:02:41 AM
I believe the NAIA runs (or used to run) an independent tournament that actually grants a bid to the national tournament just like an AQ conference would. I think that's a pretty good model actually, assuming their are at least 7 independents who would be willing to do it.
Especially when a lot of regular conferences have these stupid tourneys to decide their playoff team rather than the REAL league champ.  This is actually one tourney that makes sense.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 29, 2013, 01:52:25 PM
Deadspin hit on the lunacy of the GSAC:

http://deadspin.com/5978363/how-the-ncaa-causes-gigantism-the-story-of-the-small-regional-conference-that-swallowed-up-the-continent
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2013, 03:26:10 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on January 24, 2013, 12:20:01 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on January 24, 2013, 10:02:41 AM
I believe the NAIA runs (or used to run) an independent tournament that actually grants a bid to the national tournament just like an AQ conference would. I think that's a pretty good model actually, assuming their are at least 7 independents who would be willing to do it.
Especially when a lot of regular conferences have these stupid tourneys to decide their playoff team rather than the REAL league champ.  This is actually one tourney that makes sense.

I believe that we can blame this historically on the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 29, 2013, 03:52:49 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 29, 2013, 01:52:25 PM
Deadspin hit on the lunacy of the GSAC:

http://deadspin.com/5978363/how-the-ncaa-causes-gigantism-the-story-of-the-small-regional-conference-that-swallowed-up-the-continent

QuoteThis new alignment is a smart survivalist move by the Great South Athletic Conference. It offers a great opportunity for female athletes at these recently-added programs. But I think most would agree that this is not the ideal structure for college athletics.

I think that he is reaching a bit in the case of the GSAC.

The GSAC has provided a Conference Tournament!  The alternative for post-season access would be a "play-in" tourney or some "committee pick'em" using Massey or some other index and a vote of "secret committee". The GSAC is cleaning up the isolated schools!

Even when Stillman and Fisk were in the conference, no one wanted Rust!?!?

Do New Rochelle and UC Santa Cruz need to reconsider?

When is St Josephs Brooklyn going to join the Skyline?

Presentation just needs to keep its head above water!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2013, 04:58:02 PM
I think most would agree that this is not the ideal structure for college athletics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: John Gleich on January 31, 2013, 11:09:11 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 29, 2013, 04:58:02 PM
I think most would agree that this is not the ideal structure for college athletics.

But what is the alternative...?  The Pool B system, which, as well, is not the ideal structure for college athletics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on January 31, 2013, 11:32:51 AM
It makes more sense than a far flung 'CINO' (conference in name only). It also promotes regional games (in a sense) which helps on cost control. Of course, the remaining "B" schools are far flung anyway (for the most part...)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 31, 2013, 04:41:30 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 31, 2013, 11:32:51 AM
It makes more sense than a far flung 'CINO' (conference in name only). It also promotes regional games (in a sense) which helps on cost control. Of course, the remaining "B" schools are far flung anyway (for the most part...)

But at least it's a bid they can win, as opposed to one they have to rely on the committee to give out.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: CrashDavisD3 on February 08, 2013, 12:36:44 PM
Playoff spot should be won on the field, court etc...Not let a group of people decide.

Conference tourneys make it easy. Winner goes to playoffs.Then eliminate Pool B/C bids....All go into the AT Large bid pool
Make criteria simple for this. Winning percentage for Region, D3 Games, overall winning percentage, SOS..
Each criteria ranked against other teams in the region.

Example Team 1   
1st in Winning Percentage for Region
3rd in Winning Percentage for D3 Games
4th in Overall Winning Percentage
5th in SOS

Total of 13 points...Team with the lowest number goes.

Plug those numbers into a computer and out comes a list of teams...

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on February 08, 2013, 01:28:32 PM
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on February 08, 2013, 12:36:44 PM
Playoff spot should be won on the field, court etc...Not let a group of people decide.

Conference tourneys make it easy. Winner goes to playoffs.Then eliminate Pool B/C bids....All go into the AT Large bid pool
Make criteria simple for this. Winning percentage for Region, D3 Games, overall winning percentage, SOS..
Each criteria ranked against other teams in the region.

Example Team 1   
1st in Winning Percentage for Region
3rd in Winning Percentage for D3 Games
4th in Overall Winning Percentage
5th in SOS

Total of 13 points...Team with the lowest number goes.

Plug those numbers into a computer and out comes a list of teams...
+1 Crash
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: John Gleich on February 08, 2013, 02:03:07 PM
Quote from: CrashDavisD3 on February 08, 2013, 12:36:44 PM
Playoff spot should be won on the field, court etc...Not let a group of people decide.

Conference tourneys make it easy. Winner goes to playoffs.Then eliminate Pool B/C bids....All go into the AT Large bid pool
Make criteria simple for this. Winning percentage for Region, D3 Games, overall winning percentage, SOS..
Each criteria ranked against other teams in the region.

Example Team 1   
1st in Winning Percentage for Region
3rd in Winning Percentage for D3 Games
4th in Overall Winning Percentage
5th in SOS

Total of 13 points...Team with the lowest number goes.

Plug those numbers into a computer and out comes a list of teams...

Let's just throw a hypothetical out there though...

Let's say a team is 1st in winning percentage... in fact, they're undefeated.
But their SOS is 50th in the region.

So, they're 1, 1, 1, 50 = 53.

The next 7 teams are all 1 game over .500, so they're tied for #2 in win %, win % for D3, and overall win %.

They all have an identical SOS of 40th.

So, they're all 2, 2, 2, 40 = 46.

By your criteria, each of these 7 teams would be selected before the team that is undefeated... but they've done significantly worse compared to their schedule that isn't a whole lot better.


This is clearly hypothetical... but it shows that it's really not all that simple to figure out.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 08, 2013, 02:06:10 PM
Plus one person's fair numerical criteria is another one's biased data noodling. I think there's a balance of art and science in picking the field.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on February 13, 2013, 12:26:14 PM
Blindfolded darts tossing to determine at large bids.  After the AQ's are determined all the remaining teams are put on large dart board and the committee takes turns getting blindfolded, spun around until dizzy then pointed towards the dart board and they each get to throw three darts until the bracket is filled.  Alternative to spinning until dizzy is shotgunning beers.  After all it is college.   ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Steve Wiitala on February 14, 2013, 09:37:33 AM
If we realize that the Pool C slots are very limited, no matter how the criteria are determined there will be deserving teams that are left out if they don't win their league tournament.  (I presume in most sports it goes like hockey and the Pool A bid goes to the team winning the post season tournament instead of the team that wins the regular season).  If you don't win the league, you are relying on a process that is bound to lead to disappointment for most teams. 

Mathematically, the source of Pool C slots are the leagues that have more than 7 teams.  It you take the number of teams in excess of 6.5 in all of the Pool A conferences and divide by 6.5, you get the number of Pool C slots.  Since conferences seem to be regressing toward 7 teams per conference, the number of Pool C slots continues to shrink.  In hockey, for example, in the last few years we have seen a weak 14 team conference essentially split into two 7 team conferences (there was some other shuffling going on as well, but that was the net result).  This change chopped off one Pool C slot, and added another weak team to the national championship field.  The reality of it is that for most teams, the national tournament starts with the first round of the league tournament.  I think it is unfortunate that there are so many teams that have outstanding seasons and get left out of the hunt for the national championship because of one bad game in the league playoffs. 

It would be better if the criteria were spelled out at the outset instead of put into the hands of a committee.  At least you know what you have to do.  A team with a great regular season, but not measuring up with the criteria would at least know they had no chance if they didn't win out.  You may not like the criteria, but it prevents surprises from the "smoke filled room (as we call it in hockey)"
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 14, 2013, 10:37:45 AM
Respectfully Steve, I am not sure how the whole Pool B/Pool C thing shakes out in Hockey, but as for football, hoops and baseball, the process seems to work out pretty well, once we have had a chance to read the Championship Handbook (once it is published and revisions/corrections have been made.)  By Selection Sunday, we are usually quibbling about the last 1-2 slots.  There are enough Pool C slots in football, hoops and baseball that the last slot goes to a worthy team, and the next team on the table has an ugly loss that one can point to as the reason they might have gotten in.

As for minor sports such as golf, there are plenty of quality teams that are left behind.  That sport also has limited Pool C bids, because of the same dynamics in the numbers.

A couple of seasons ago, I think that we counted about 230 men's hoops programs that were entering into post-season conference tourneys for the AQ. That is about as close to a national tournament as one might get inside the philosophy of D3. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 14, 2013, 10:45:40 AM
I think a question that needs to be asked is what is the purpose of the national tournament.

Is it to give deserving teams a postseason experience? If so then I would agree that the number of Pool C teams should be expanded because there are deserving teams left out.

Is the point of the national tournament is to determine the national champion? If so then at-large teams are absolutely unnecessary except in the case of giving the ECAC West teams (or other Pool B teams) a spot to fight for. If you can't win your league (season or tournament) I have pretty strong evidence that suggests you do not deserve to be the national champion ("You can't even come in 1st place in your league and you want to be considered 1st in the nation? That's a ridiculous idea.").

The current tournament is probably the best mix of both. The only safe way is to win your league (whether for your league it is the season or the tournament). If you can't do that you should be grateful they are even considering letting you play for a national championship. Except for Pool B there is a very clear route to the national tournament. If you can't do it you don't have much to complain about when you are preparing to play golf at the start of March.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2013, 10:59:45 AM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 14, 2013, 10:45:40 AM
I think a question that needs to be asked is what is the purpose of the national tournament.

Is it to give deserving teams a postseason experience? If so then I would agree that the number of Pool C teams should be expanded because there are deserving teams left out.

Is the point of the national tournament is to determine the national champion? If so then at-large teams are absolutely unnecessary except in the case of giving the ECAC West teams (or other Pool B teams) a spot to fight for. If you can't win your league (season or tournament) I have pretty strong evidence that suggests you do not deserve to be the national champion ("You can't even come in 1st place in your league and you want to be considered 1st in the nation? That's a ridiculous idea.").

The problem isn't necessarily the national tournament; it's the conference tournaments.  If a conference gives their auto-qualifier to the regular season champion, it's tough to argue they don't deserve it.  They won the regular season, proven over a longer period of time.  If you give it to a conference tournament champion, you only have to get hot for a week or maybe even just one game.  That seems less fair to others, and thus the need for at-large bids.

Ultimately, though, we have to remember that a national tournament doesn't name the best team in the country, it merely names the team that won the tournament.  Granted, it's a tournament comprised of all the best schools and the winner certainly has a claim to greatness, but it's still defined by context.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on February 14, 2013, 01:36:42 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 14, 2013, 10:59:45 AM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 14, 2013, 10:45:40 AM
I think a question that needs to be asked is what is the purpose of the national tournament.

Is it to give deserving teams a postseason experience? If so then I would agree that the number of Pool C teams should be expanded because there are deserving teams left out.

Is the point of the national tournament is to determine the national champion? If so then at-large teams are absolutely unnecessary except in the case of giving the ECAC West teams (or other Pool B teams) a spot to fight for. If you can't win your league (season or tournament) I have pretty strong evidence that suggests you do not deserve to be the national champion ("You can't even come in 1st place in your league and you want to be considered 1st in the nation? That's a ridiculous idea.").

The problem isn't necessarily the national tournament; it's the conference tournaments.  If a conference gives their auto-qualifier to the regular season champion, it's tough to argue they don't deserve it.  They won the regular season, proven over a longer period of time.  If you give it to a conference tournament champion, you only have to get hot for a week or maybe even just one game.  That seems less fair to others, and thus the need for at-large bids.

Ultimately, though, we have to remember that a national tournament doesn't name the best team in the country, it merely names the team that won the tournament.  Granted, it's a tournament comprised of all the best schools and the winner certainly has a claim to greatness, but it's still defined by context.

This is precisely why I like "limited participant" conference tournaments where no more than roughly half the league gets in.  Even better if there is not a predetermined site and the #1 seed gets home field/court/etc. As much as a conference tournament may seem to be less reflective of the season as a whole than simply giving the first-place team, sometimes the opposite is true.  Tennis is a good example.  Say Team A loses to Team B in the regular season but Team A's #1 player is injured for that match and they lose 5-4.  In every match throughout the season, it is clear Team A is the stronger of the two teams (not hard to figure out in a sport like tennis). If those two teams play again in the conference championship at full strength, Team A likely wins quite easily.  (Of course, the opposite can happen - which is why at-large bids are a good thing).  I like the idea of a team earning their way into the conference tournament (and the #1 seed earning home advantage). It sort of does add extra "preliminary" rounds to the national tournament.  A conference tournament also gives leagues a way to determine AQs when multiple teams tie for first place and there isn't an easy tie-breaker to fall back on like head-to-head.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 14, 2013, 03:09:08 PM
Quote from: sunny on February 14, 2013, 01:36:42 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 14, 2013, 10:59:45 AM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 14, 2013, 10:45:40 AM
I think a question that needs to be asked is what is the purpose of the national tournament.

Is it to give deserving teams a postseason experience? If so then I would agree that the number of Pool C teams should be expanded because there are deserving teams left out.

Is the point of the national tournament is to determine the national champion? If so then at-large teams are absolutely unnecessary except in the case of giving the ECAC West teams (or other Pool B teams) a spot to fight for. If you can't win your league (season or tournament) I have pretty strong evidence that suggests you do not deserve to be the national champion ("You can't even come in 1st place in your league and you want to be considered 1st in the nation? That's a ridiculous idea.").

The problem isn't necessarily the national tournament; it's the conference tournaments.  If a conference gives their auto-qualifier to the regular season champion, it's tough to argue they don't deserve it.  They won the regular season, proven over a longer period of time.  If you give it to a conference tournament champion, you only have to get hot for a week or maybe even just one game.  That seems less fair to others, and thus the need for at-large bids.

Ultimately, though, we have to remember that a national tournament doesn't name the best team in the country, it merely names the team that won the tournament.  Granted, it's a tournament comprised of all the best schools and the winner certainly has a claim to greatness, but it's still defined by context.

This is precisely why I like "limited participant" conference tournaments where no more than roughly half the league gets in.  Even better if there is not a predetermined site and the #1 seed gets home field/court/etc. As much as a conference tournament may seem to be less reflective of the season as a whole than simply giving the first-place team, sometimes the opposite is true.  Tennis is a good example.  Say Team A loses to Team B in the regular season but Team A's #1 player is injured for that match and they lose 5-4.  In every match throughout the season, it is clear Team A is the stronger of the two teams (not hard to figure out in a sport like tennis). If those two teams play again in the conference championship at full strength, Team A likely wins quite easily.  (Of course, the opposite can happen - which is why at-large bids are a good thing).  I like the idea of a team earning their way into the conference tournament (and the #1 seed earning home advantage). It sort of does add extra "preliminary" rounds to the national tournament.  A conference tournament also gives leagues a way to determine AQs when multiple teams tie for first place and there isn't an easy tie-breaker to fall back on like head-to-head.

Right, but as you pointed out, the opposite can happen and any number of factors can limit what a team does.  MIT's men's basketball team right now is without two starters (and have been all year) from what was clearly the best returning line-up in the country.  Should those guys come back for the tournament, they'll be better than their record and if they win, no doubt people would call them the best team.  Of course they weren't the best team most of the year.

That's why we have to recognize the limits of a tournament at all.  People claim it's better than a poll or whatever the BCS does, but really it doesn't do a better job of determining the best team, it merely crowns a tournament winner.  The team that played the best consistently over a period of weeks at the end of a long season.  You can still make an argument (and some do) that another team is really the best.

It is just one of the limitations of a tournament.  However, if you want to do your best to make sure the best teams over the course of the season have a chance to win the tournament, you take conference champs, not conference tourney winners.

A few at-large bids make sense for clearly deserving teams.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on February 14, 2013, 06:46:57 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 14, 2013, 03:09:08 PM
Quote from: sunny on February 14, 2013, 01:36:42 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 14, 2013, 10:59:45 AM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 14, 2013, 10:45:40 AM
I think a question that needs to be asked is what is the purpose of the national tournament.

Is it to give deserving teams a postseason experience? If so then I would agree that the number of Pool C teams should be expanded because there are deserving teams left out.

Is the point of the national tournament is to determine the national champion? If so then at-large teams are absolutely unnecessary except in the case of giving the ECAC West teams (or other Pool B teams) a spot to fight for. If you can't win your league (season or tournament) I have pretty strong evidence that suggests you do not deserve to be the national champion ("You can't even come in 1st place in your league and you want to be considered 1st in the nation? That's a ridiculous idea.").

The problem isn't necessarily the national tournament; it's the conference tournaments.  If a conference gives their auto-qualifier to the regular season champion, it's tough to argue they don't deserve it.  They won the regular season, proven over a longer period of time.  If you give it to a conference tournament champion, you only have to get hot for a week or maybe even just one game.  That seems less fair to others, and thus the need for at-large bids.

Ultimately, though, we have to remember that a national tournament doesn't name the best team in the country, it merely names the team that won the tournament.  Granted, it's a tournament comprised of all the best schools and the winner certainly has a claim to greatness, but it's still defined by context.

This is precisely why I like "limited participant" conference tournaments where no more than roughly half the league gets in.  Even better if there is not a predetermined site and the #1 seed gets home field/court/etc. As much as a conference tournament may seem to be less reflective of the season as a whole than simply giving the first-place team, sometimes the opposite is true.  Tennis is a good example.  Say Team A loses to Team B in the regular season but Team A's #1 player is injured for that match and they lose 5-4.  In every match throughout the season, it is clear Team A is the stronger of the two teams (not hard to figure out in a sport like tennis). If those two teams play again in the conference championship at full strength, Team A likely wins quite easily.  (Of course, the opposite can happen - which is why at-large bids are a good thing).  I like the idea of a team earning their way into the conference tournament (and the #1 seed earning home advantage). It sort of does add extra "preliminary" rounds to the national tournament.  A conference tournament also gives leagues a way to determine AQs when multiple teams tie for first place and there isn't an easy tie-breaker to fall back on like head-to-head.

Right, but as you pointed out, the opposite can happen and any number of factors can limit what a team does.  MIT's men's basketball team right now is without two starters (and have been all year) from what was clearly the best returning line-up in the country.  Should those guys come back for the tournament, they'll be better than their record and if they win, no doubt people would call them the best team.  Of course they weren't the best team most of the year.

That's why we have to recognize the limits of a tournament at all.  People claim it's better than a poll or whatever the BCS does, but really it doesn't do a better job of determining the best team, it merely crowns a tournament winner.  The team that played the best consistently over a period of weeks at the end of a long season.  You can still make an argument (and some do) that another team is really the best.

It is just one of the limitations of a tournament.  However, if you want to do your best to make sure the best teams over the course of the season have a chance to win the tournament, you take conference champs, not conference tourney winners.

A few at-large bids make sense for clearly deserving teams.

The NCAA DOES take conference champions.  They leave it up to the conferences how to decide those champions. As you say, the tournament model has its limitations, but (thankfully) the cases of teams who could have made a legitimate argument at being the best in the nation being left out of a tournament are few and far between. (The last incredibly egregious one I can remember was W&L being left out of the Division III men's lax tournament after they went undefeated before losing in the ODAC Championship game. But that only happened because there were ZERO Pool C bids for that tournament that year and that was over a decade ago.)

Clearly, the tournaments exists for reasons other than simply crowning the best team. The reality is that only one team can "be the best" or win the national title. And the more severe reality is that for many teams (or entire departments) reaching an NCAA Tournament one time will be a crowning jewel.  I like the limited conference tournament/national tournament model because it allows for programs of different resources and stages of development to hang their hats on different things (making the conference tournament/making the conference tournament final/winning the conference and advancing to the NCAAs/winning a game in the NCAAs/advancing to the Sweet Sixteen-Semis-Division III World Series-etc/winning the national championship. Each "step" or achievement can vary in meaningfulness depending on the perspective of the program.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Steve Wiitala on February 14, 2013, 10:40:00 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on February 14, 2013, 10:45:40 AM
I think a question that needs to be asked is what is the purpose of the national tournament.

Is it to give deserving teams a postseason experience? If so then I would agree that the number of Pool C teams should be expanded because there are deserving teams left out.

Is the point of the national tournament is to determine the national champion? If so then at-large teams are absolutely unnecessary except in the case of giving the ECAC West teams (or other Pool B teams) a spot to fight for. If you can't win your league (season or tournament) I have pretty strong evidence that suggests you do not deserve to be the national champion ("You can't even come in 1st place in your league and you want to be considered 1st in the nation? That's a ridiculous idea.").

The current tournament is probably the best mix of both. The only safe way is to win your league (whether for your league it is the season or the tournament). If you can't do that you should be grateful they are even considering letting you play for a national championship. Except for Pool B there is a very clear route to the national tournament. If you can't do it you don't have much to complain about when you are preparing to play golf at the start of March.

My only real objection to the process is the lack of clarity that exists in hockey (and probably in other sports).  We always seem to get to the point where the committee includes a team in the field that doesn't really seem to fit, while a more deserving team gets left out.  In hockey, we have only one league (ECAC West) that doesn't get an a Pool A bid, and is left to swim in Pool C.  If it weren't for the ECAC West, I would really not have a problem with sending only league champions to the tournament.  My problem (as a statistician) is that there is not a uniform application of the Pool C criteria by the committees.  If we said that Winning percentage was x%, SOS was x%, etc, I could relate to the process better.  When my school (Norwich) got left out when they lost in the league tournament, I had no problem, except for the fact that a team with a weaker portfolio got in.  Heck, leave both of them out.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 14, 2013, 10:49:33 PM
Steve,

I don't think I've ever seen an NCAA field, in any sport, in any division, where there wasn't some complaints or arguments about one team being in the field and another team being left out.

I also think 'league champs only' is wrong. All deserving league champs should be in (as long as they're a 'real' league meeting the criteria and number of teams) in every sport and there should be at large teams to balance the fields to a make a 16, 32, 64, etc. team field. (I don't like unbalanced fields, either).

And as much of a numbers geek as I am, I also think there needs to be a bit of nuance. The difference between teams is so small, so slight, at the tail end of "C" that it is nuance...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Steve Wiitala on February 14, 2013, 11:07:48 PM
Quote from: smedindy on February 14, 2013, 10:49:33 PM
Steve,

I don't think I've ever seen an NCAA field, in any sport, in any division, where there wasn't some complaints or arguments about one team being in the field and another team being left out.

I also think 'league champs only' is wrong. All deserving league champs should be in (as long as they're a 'real' league meeting the criteria and number of teams) in every sport and there should be at large teams to balance the fields to a make a 16, 32, 64, etc. team field. (I don't like unbalanced fields, either).

And as much of a numbers geek as I am, I also think there needs to be a bit of nuance. The difference between teams is so small, so slight, at the tail end of "C" that it is nuance...

Obviously, at this point, we in the hockey world are focused on the selection process for out tournament.  My objection to the process is the lack of objectivity.  No matter how many teams are in the field, there will be teams left out with what seems like legitimate claims on the last spot.  As a statistician, I would prefer that some kind of objective measure be used, instead of the current process in which the committee is given a list of criteria and told to use them with no specification as to how those criteria are to be weighted.  The problem is that the perception of the process allows outsiders to question whether the "last team in" was chosen because of merit or past reputation.  That is the reason that I'd be willing to eliminate all Pool C selections.

I also agree that the size of the field should be a power of 2, or at least half way between powers of two.  the 1:6.5 ratio leads to unbalanced brackets, and since the match ups in early rounds are also governed by travel restrictions, we often get inequities in the way that the brackets are set up. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2013, 10:01:27 AM
The Championship structure is the essentially the same for all sports.

Is your complaint about the Pool C bid because the team from a perceived weaker region was picked instead of a team on the table from a perceived stronger region?

Is the quality of play in the various regions so disparate that the SOS does not work homogeneously across the nation and the sport at the D3 level?

Thanks.   :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Steve Wiitala on February 15, 2013, 01:14:36 PM
The issue is the rather arbitrary way that the committee appears to apply the criteria.  In ranking some teams WIN% is the most important criterion, and SOS is secondary.  In other cases SOS is more important and outweighs WIN%.  The real problem is the lack of transparency.  In hockey there are two regions (we are a small sport), an 11 team field with 8 Pool A leagues and 3 Pool C bids.  (We have one league with only 6 teams, and no independents, so there is no Pool B). 

The last couple of years what has happened has been the case that there seems to be a lot of game playing going on.  The regional rankings have been manipulated to help one region get the upper hand in the selection of Pool C slots.  A team mysteriously appears at the bottom slot (16th in the East or 8th in the West) that enables a borderline candidate's resume for the last Pool C spot to improve.  The real problem is that in some ways hockey traditions and practices are different from other sports, and the problems in selecting the field really started with the advent of the Pool system. 

Before that started, there were some weak leagues that didn't get auto bids, and the number of at large bids was larger.  We all understood who would be in an who would be out - the process was transparent.  With the granting of Pool A almost automatically to any league with 7 or more teams, we have gone from  5 auto bids to 8 - The ECAC Northeast, MASCAC, and MCHA have all recently been given auto bids, and two of those leagues have exactly 7 members, and are very weak.  When you lose almost  20% of the field to accommodate auto bids for teams that have no chance, it squeezes the Pool C choices and makes the whole process seem very political. The MASCAC + ECAC NE totaled 13 teams, and when the MASCAC was formed, they ended up with 7 teams by taking 6 ECAC NE teams and "stealing" one from the ECAC E.  The net result was the loss of a Pool C spot at the cost of adding a team with little chance to advance.  In other sports, I'm sure that happens as well (Norwich playing in the Football tournament a couple of years ago would be a good example), but the percentage of the field that is affected is greater. 

My rant I guess really comes down to the "one-size fits all" approach that is used in setting the field.

I apologize for the long rambling rant  :P

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: fantastic50 on March 19, 2013, 04:41:26 PM
Perhaps we will be adding some large public institutions to the Great Lakes and Midwest regions...  ;)

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21912935/jim-delany-big-ten-would-choose-another-option-if-forced-to-pay-players (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21912935/jim-delany-big-ten-would-choose-another-option-if-forced-to-pay-players)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 20, 2013, 12:02:40 AM
Maybe Chicago could rejoin it's former conference-mates... and we'd have someone who might be able to beat Mount Union at football ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on March 20, 2013, 12:11:41 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 20, 2013, 12:02:40 AM
Maybe Chicago could rejoin it's former conference-mates... and we'd have someone who might be able to beat Mount Union at football ;D

The bigger question is will Wisconsin bolt the B1G and join the WIAC with their fellow UW schools? ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 20, 2013, 09:08:56 AM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on March 20, 2013, 12:11:41 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 20, 2013, 12:02:40 AM
Maybe Chicago could rejoin it's former conference-mates... and we'd have someone who might be able to beat Mount Union at football ;D

The bigger question is will Wisconsin bolt the B1G and join the WIAC with their fellow UW schools? ;D
+1 to both! :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on March 25, 2013, 11:57:26 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 20, 2013, 09:08:56 AM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on March 20, 2013, 12:11:41 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 20, 2013, 12:02:40 AM
Maybe Chicago could rejoin it's former conference-mates... and we'd have someone who might be able to beat Mount Union at football ;D

The bigger question is will Wisconsin bolt the B1G and join the WIAC with their fellow UW schools? ;D
+1 to both! :)
Ditto
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 25, 2013, 12:34:49 PM

I tried to come up with some sort of rationale to justify the statement, but I couldn't do it.

Even if they went to a non-scholarship model, a lot of these schools would still be making money on the likenesses of players and be subject to the ruling.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 25, 2013, 04:08:20 PM
Alfred State is now in the provisional pipeline. (http://www.alfredstateathletics.com/athletics/genrel/ncaa_announcement) Pretty soon,  Albany, Binghamton, and Stony Brook will be the only three campuses out of all 72,258 branches of the State University of New York that aren't in D3. ;)

Meanwhile, Presentation has moved on from D3 to the NAIA. (http://www.pcsaints.com/news/2013/4/22/GEN_0422131531.aspx?path=general) It was a move that made sense for the Saints, particularly from a geographic standpoint. They've even found a new Dakotas-based league to join, right off the bat. (http://www.pcsaints.com/news/2013/4/23/GEN_0423131019.aspx?path=general)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 25, 2013, 04:42:26 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 25, 2013, 04:08:20 PM
Alfred State is now in the provisional pipeline. (http://www.alfredstateathletics.com/athletics/genrel/ncaa_announcement)

QuoteAlfred State is also in the process of joining several other athletic associations including the Eastern Collegiate Athletic Conference and the United States Collegiate Athletic Association which will provide postseason and national accolades immediately for Pioneer athletes. 

...
Schedules for the 2013-14 school year are being made now with a majority of the contests versus four year competition.  The college is in the process of exploring conference membership options with hopes to joining a conference in the near future.

Alfred State currently offers 18 intercollegiate athletic teams (baseball, men's and women's basketball, men's and women's cross country, football, men's lacrosse, men's and women's soccer, softball, men's and women's swimming, men's and women's indoor and outdoor track & field, volleyball, and wrestling).

Who wants Alfred State?  SUNYAC?  NEAC?  Is there enough interest to adding Alfred State to set up a "bidding war" between those two conferences to give Alfred State a favorable welcoming where they land?

Football?  SUNYAC...
No ice hockey, tho'...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on April 25, 2013, 05:23:33 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 25, 2013, 04:08:20 PM
Alfred State is now in the provisional pipeline. (http://www.alfredstateathletics.com/athletics/genrel/ncaa_announcement) Pretty soon,  Albany, Binghamton, and Stony Brook will be the only three campuses out of all 72,258 branches of the State University of New York that aren't in D3. ;)

And that's just slightly more than the number of Concordias in the free world. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 27, 2013, 08:18:22 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 25, 2013, 04:08:20 PM
Alfred State is now in the provisional pipeline. (http://www.alfredstateathletics.com/athletics/genrel/ncaa_announcement) Pretty soon,  Albany, Binghamton, and Stony Brook will be the only three campuses out of all 72,258 branches of the State University of New York that aren't in D3. ;)

Meanwhile, Presentation has moved on from D3 to the NAIA. (http://www.pcsaints.com/news/2013/4/22/GEN_0422131531.aspx?path=general) It was a move that made sense for the Saints, particularly from a geographic standpoint. They've even found a new Dakotas-based league to join, right off the bat. (http://www.pcsaints.com/news/2013/4/23/GEN_0423131019.aspx?path=general)

That number might be low.  They had a SUNY display at the rest stops on the NY State Thruway and it was like 20 feet tall with very tiny print.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on May 31, 2013, 01:15:01 AM
That was one of the branches. You didn't realize it, but you were visiting SUNY-Rest Stop Exit 186. They're the Fightin' Map Readers!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: mattvsmith on May 31, 2013, 11:15:56 AM
+K to you, JustBill. SUNY-Rest Stop Exit 186. Truly classic.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 11, 2013, 09:54:28 PM
The Education Bubble Has Burst (http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/education_bubble_has_burst.html)

Quote"...college enrollment rates for students have declined 2.3% in 2013 compared to 2012."

Most of the very well endowed "D-IV's" will survive; my guess is that includes the NESCAC, the UAA, most of the NCAC's, MIAC's, Landmarks, Centennials, NEWMAC's, CCIW's, WIAC's and Liberty League.

Some of the OAC, MAC, SUNYAC, MASCAC, LEC, NJAC, SAA, MIAA, SCAC and NWC will survive.

From there, I think that you have to make a case-by-case determination of the prospects for survival.

One of the links provides this news.

http://theweek.com/article/index/240205/why-your-college-could-go-bankrupt

QuoteMinnesota's St. Olaf College and Carleton College, for example, have begun discussing combining libraries, technology infrastructure, human resources and payroll — and possibly even their academic programs.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on June 14, 2013, 06:22:47 AM
Enrollment down, but surge in the number of graduates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/education/a-sharp-rise-in-americans-with-college-degrees.html?pagewanted=all
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: mattvsmith on June 14, 2013, 06:57:23 AM
The state of higher education is so poor that one has put effort into not graduating. A pulse and a tuition payment usually do it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: WLCALUM83 on June 16, 2013, 11:15:49 PM

Quote from: Hoops Fan on April 27, 2013, 08:18:22 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 25, 2013, 04:08:20 PM
Alfred State is now in the provisional pipeline. (http://www.alfredstateathletics.com/athletics/genrel/ncaa_announcement) Pretty soon,  Albany, Binghamton, and Stony Brook will be the only three campuses out of all 72,258 branches of the State University of New York that aren't in D3. ;)

Meanwhile, Presentation has moved on from D3 to the NAIA. (http://www.pcsaints.com/news/2013/4/22/GEN_0422131531.aspx?path=general) It was a move that made sense for the Saints, particularly from a geographic standpoint. They've even found a new Dakotas-based league to join, right off the bat. (http://www.pcsaints.com/news/2013/4/23/GEN_0423131019.aspx?path=general)

That number might be low.  They had a SUNY display at the rest stops on the NY State Thruway and it was like 20 feet tall with very tiny print.
Quote from: Just Bill on May 31, 2013, 01:15:01 AM
That was one of the branches. You didn't realize it, but you were visiting SUNY-Rest Stop Exit 186. They're the Fightin' Map Readers!
Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on May 31, 2013, 11:15:56 AM
+K to you, JustBill. SUNY-Rest Stop Exit 186. Truly classic.

(Willie Nelson's "On the Road Again" and Johnny Cash's "I've Been Everywhere" playing back to back. . . )

    The Fightin' Map Readers!  Wonder what they'd do whenever they came to a fork in the road. . . )

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on June 21, 2013, 05:20:15 PM
The Cartographers!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sbparent on June 28, 2013, 01:22:07 PM
February 26, 2013

By Dave McHugh
D3sports.com

It looks like the much-talked about regional realignment is nearly here. For two years, there has been serious conversations and the exercise of realigning the regions in Division III


Full article at:

http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2013/02/regional-realignment-coming

Anyone heard the final outcome of this.  Article says that the NCAA management council would meet in April to finalize?  I cannot find any further updates on their meeting and the results.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: pumkinattack on June 29, 2013, 06:52:39 PM
Ralph, I read that story about the college bubble bursting and had a suspicion by the way it was written that it was a biased approach.  When I read the language in the sentence of "a major bankruptcy at a college in Georgia" I have I question the value of the article.  Georgia Perimeter College is a two year school with an endowment that peaked at a level only about 15% higher than a house in Atlanta that I just went under contract on and my name ain't Goizeta, Candler or Cox. 

I have problems with the higher education system, think the language used by politicians is eerily similar to the "American dream" talk about home ownership that is the smoke and mirrors fraud that politicians have been playing with the public since the development of Levittown and think ultimately judge Smails advice to Danny Noonan will seem sage rather than a joke.  That being said, there's got to be a better piece supporting your thesis than the one posted above.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 29, 2013, 09:42:39 PM
Morris Brown (http://www.thenorthstarnews.com/Story/Morris-Brown-College-Files-for-Chapter-11-Bankruptcy), the HBC founded in 1881, declared bankruptcy last year.  I wonder if that is the one that they meant.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: pumkinattack on June 29, 2013, 10:15:13 PM
Even if that were the case, does that support the idea of financial failure since he head of the school was found guilty of defrauding the federal government that caused them to lose accreditation in 2003?

Again, I worry that conflating specific cases which are very unique situations and not just a result of a broader macroeconomic decline in the valuation of college degrees doesn't advance what should be a real discussion about the value of just getting any college education vs. taking up a trade.  This seems really important right now as the government is discussing further subsidizing college education.  Some in congress, including Elizabeth Warren, are proposing dropping the DOE lending rate to 75bps after they've already taken third party lenders primarily out of the game.  There really needs to be a serious discussion about subsidizing this (like housing and agriculture) and I don't see either of these examples helping advance that conversation.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: mattvsmith on June 29, 2013, 11:29:48 PM
It's really pretty simple. Any time there is easy money there will be gross malinvestment. The easier the money the worse the malinvestment will be. Hence, the GI Bill encourages schools to offer garbage degrees from joke schools like Univeristybof Phoenix, Walden, Cappella, etc. but in government service, whether military or GS a degree, any degree from any crap school is treated the same as a degree from Harvard. It's a tick box and points are credited.
Easy money also goes to schools in form of subsidies to let substandard students in. If you let in a quota of this target group, we'll dump money into your school.
Then there is the individual loan racket which gives the false statistic about students who go to university earn $1 million more over a life time than non-graduates. It's the same kind of unsophisticated blatent lie that department of labor uses when it says men are paid more than women. Anyway, easy money for school makes a student try a program he or she wouldn't have tried had money been tight. Worse yet, by passing out easy money to substandard students to attend substandard schools, they must create substandard majors so that these students can hide the fact that they are dumber than the wet paper bag they can't think their way out of. I'm thinking specifically of majors like Wymyn's Studies, American Studies, Film Studies, GLBTQIHIJKLMNOP Studies, and so on. A straight A in Afro-Chicano-AsianPacificIsander-Queer Studies? Great. I'll take the dude with a C in Mathematics because he is obviously not a navel gazing nitwit.
If the Rev were in charge, I'd blow up the whole education system. It is geared to turn middle and lower class students into a permanent under class of faux-educated debt slaves who think 30k in a cubicle is freedom and status.
I should have become a mechanic.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NCF on June 30, 2013, 12:17:27 AM
Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on June 29, 2013, 11:29:48 PM
It's really pretty simple. Any time there is easy money there will be gross malinvestment. The easier the money the worse the malinvestment will be. Hence, the GI Bill encourages schools to offer garbage degrees from joke schools like Univeristybof Phoenix, Walden, Cappella, etc. but in government service, whether military or GS a degree, any degree from any crap school is treated the same as a degree from Harvard. It's a tick box and points are credited.
Easy money also goes to schools in form of subsidies to let substandard students in. If you let in a quota of this target group, we'll dump money into your school.
Then there is the individual loan racket which gives the false statistic about students who go to university earn $1 million more over a life time than non-graduates. It's the same kind of unsophisticated blatent lie that department of labor uses when it says men are paid more than women. Anyway, easy money for school makes a student try a program he or she wouldn't have tried had money been tight. Worse yet, by passing out easy money to substandard students to attend substandard schools, they must create substandard majors so that these students can hide the fact that they are dumber than the wet paper bag they can't think their way out of. I'm thinking specifically of majors like Wymyn's Studies, American Studies, Film Studies, GLBTQIHIJKLMNOP Studies, and so on. A straight A in Afro-Chicano-AsianPacificIsander-Queer Studies? Great. I'll take the dude with a C in Mathematics because he is obviously not a navel gazing nitwit.
If the Rev were in charge, I'd blow up the whole education system. It is geared to turn middle and lower class students into a permanent under class of faux-educated debt slaves who think 30k in a cubicle is freedom and status.
I should have become a mechanic.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this post. I happened to hear  Bill Bennett on Friday talking about this subject (he has a new book out called "Is College Worth It?") and he said pretty much everything you did. K+
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on July 02, 2013, 08:30:24 PM
Rev,

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I was with you  on for profit schools, but then you lost me:

A. Your inclusion of a contentious political point threw me off because I happen to BELIEVE in those stats and figures and numbers regarding women's pay - since I have two daughters it's especially vital and important to me. To bat it down without stats and citations to pass it off is disingenuous and smacks of lazy cable news or talk radio punditry.

B. Those 'majors' teach people how to learn, if taught properly. There are too many nitwits thinking that business or pre-law is the way to go. I'd rather have someone with a non-conventional major than a cookie cutter in a clock punch major. Give me MORE liberal arts, not less. More navel gazing if it results in teaching people how to learn, think and explore for the rest of their life. It's not about $$$, it's about getting the most out of life and understanding what it important and how you can contribute to society.

C. Please don't denigrate or slam things like 'women's studies' - gender and culture and racial studies are important because we need to understand who we are, where we came from and what happened in the past to those groups so we know where we are going in the future. Those majors are NOT substandard - they can be misunderstood and misconstrued by knuckle draggers who want to keep minorities, women and those who are different in the shadows and those who REFUSE to learn about other cultures, traditions and ideologies.

D. Not every college has an ivory tower mission - in fact the most important colleges and universities are those who take the 'substandard' student and turns them into gems. My alma mater has a rich tradition of taking someone who may not look good on paper and turning them into stars. What's wrong with allowing those who haven't had the exposure to good teaching, haven't had the chance to excel for whatever reason TO excel AND shine by giving them a chance at a higher education. The goal is to allow those students a chance to escape drudgery and unlock their potential, by teaching them how to learn and think.

E. Is college worth it? Learning, however you call it, is always worth it, because life isn't measured in dollars and cents.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: mattvsmith on July 02, 2013, 09:18:05 PM
Smed,

The Dept of Labor aggregates all men and all women with no consideration for part-time versus full-time, hours worked per week, age, location, etc.

In 147 out of 150 cities in the USA, single women earn about 120% of what men in their partner demographic earn.

So don't believe the Labor stats. They are false, as are the ads that claim college graduates out earn non college grads by $1 million over a life time. It fails to account for the cost of student loan payback, among other things. This is so rudimentary that the clown who invented the lie would have failed AP stats and a freshman accounting course. The person who approved that should have false advertising and fraud charges brought against him or her. It's a racket. It's a legal three-card Monty to suck in the unsuspecting.

Colleges, especially ones like my alba mater, make millions (non-profit, of course!) by delivering subjects that don't deserve three hours let alone a major.


Even now the "STEM" fields are being ruined by easy money. Uncle Sugey is dumping money into STEM because they say we need more engineers, etc. It's just not true and it will create a glut in the labor market, causing a drop in real salaries. So kids will go into it hearing that the starting salary for a civil engineer is $60K when the starting salary for an English major is whatever Starbucks pays. They will naturally be attracted to engineering for the money. They won't be able to hack the coursework. So they will either drop out, or be coddled so they can limp or be carried to graduation, then they will discover that the starting salary of $60k is actually an average from 2010, but it's now 2016 and in this area civil engineers start at $40K. If they actually tried to figure a return on invesent (which they didn't because they don't even know what an ROI is) they will realize that their reality simply cannot match the bill of goods they were sold by some "well-meaning" counsellor freshman year.

Forgive any typos. I'm on an iPhone and it's hard to type as to see on this tiny screen. I have to go anyway. I teach merchant marine cadets--a STEM major! Mercifully I teach in Korea where the insanity of US colleges hasn't infected us (yet).

I stand by every thing in this and my prior post, especially about victim-status Studies majors. I was surrounded by it at Hobart, a school in keen competition for the most expensive substandard education propped up by an historically significant name.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on July 02, 2013, 11:32:49 PM
Rev, I generally heartily approve of your posts, but must take issue with (parts) of your latest diatribes.  I agree with smed that the #1 benefit of college is teaching how to learn and think (NOT the 'think' of parroting profs, but the thinking on one's own).  ANY major CAN do this; ANY prof can destroy this.

BLS stats are actually remarkably accurate - what one does with them is fraught with dangers.  As you yourself point out, they DO break down categories in ways that need not be misleading.  In most cases it is the users of BLS stats (especially TV and radio pundits) who are misleading.

(My older son had a social statistics prof at EMU who was SO bad, I nearly came out of retirement just to spare the world from him.  I could not have passed his tests, and I wrote the text he was using!  The key variable is not the university, the course, or non-profit/profit; it is the instructor.  ANY course in ANY subject can be a life changing experience or a total waste of money.)

I had other points to make, but I am old and it is late - I forget what they were.

If you were as bad as this diatribe sometimes makes you sound, I'd agree you should have been a mechanic.  But I suspect you are actually a very good teacher.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 03, 2013, 11:12:59 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on July 02, 2013, 11:32:49 PM
I had other points to make, but I am old and it is late - I forget what they were.

+1 -- sorry, this made me laugh. Thanks for fighting the good fight, Professor. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on July 03, 2013, 11:23:50 AM
I kind of agree with the Rev, I should have stayed in a Machine Shop or put my 20 in in the Navy, but I would probably still be looking for real full time work at this point of my life even if I had done that.  I just would have had a better nest egg to fall back on because I would have made a lot more working as a machinist than as an IT worker and the years I wasted in college would have been years I was earning money instead of going into debt.  College was basically a waste of time and money to me, the only good thing that came from my college years is meeting my wife and some good friends.

A Bachelors Degree is now what a HS diploma was in 1980 when I graduated HS.  I know people do not agree with me on this but I feel that it is true and from my own experience it is true.  Back when I graduated HS if I had not joined the Navy I would have been competing with everyone else with HS diplomas for those bank teller, supermarket or store clerks, construction and landscaping jobs etc.  I am now competing with college graduates for those same jobs.

I know too many people I grew up with who have advanced degrees in fields like engineering, computer science, education etc who are now working in places like Wal-Mart, Target, Shop Rite and other stores because they are over 50 and over qualified to work in their fields.  (too old and want too much money)  This problem also goes across the spectrum and is hitting people who are highly experienced tradesmen.  One is a tool maker with over 40 years experience, 20 of them teaching in tech schools.  He is now working for about 35K per year as a machine tool operator in a production line.  He can't find a teaching job, which he loves to do and is great at, (I know because he was my teacher when I was learning how to be a machinist.) because tech schools teaching shop have closed or eliminated the programs and HS and VoTech HS have cut programs.  It appears that Vo-Tech high schools have been pushing nursing programs and IT and scaling back on building trades, Machine Shop, Plumbing and Electrical Trades.  This is a problem.  We need to keep educating our youth in these trades or we will lose them.  If you think mechanics, plumbers and electricians charge a lot now, wait until the current generation retires and we have a lot less of these workers around.

We have people in higher education telling us where the next big hiring surge in going to be.  The Rev pointed out civil engineers as a example.  The one I can think of is starting in the 80's and continuing to now is teaching.  They have been pushing people to go into teaching for years now and we are still not getting the best teachers for our kids.  I am not putting down teachers and teaching, it is an honorable profession but too many go into it for the wrong reasons and we do a horrible job in this country overall in identifying the best and brightest teachers, by this I mean the natural born teachers who teach every-time they open their mouth whether they mean to or not.  My fathers uncle and my brother come to mind with this.  My fathers uncle was a professor at Farmingdale State in NY for decades.  My brother should have been a teacher but no one from HS on ever really pointed him in that direction.  Our other brother did become a teacher which he quickly realized was not for him although everyone told him he should be a teacher, he could not teach because he just did not know how to get his point across.  He became an accountant which fit his mind and personality.  I think both of my brothers were failed early on by the people who were supposed to be qualified to help them.  They and I, like every other teenager did not listen to our parents because parents are stupid when you are 17 and others are not. 

As far as college teaching me critical thinking and just how to think, I was taught this in Elementary school and Jr. High School and it was reinforced by the teachers in High School.  Kids should know how to critically think by the time they graduate HS, not learning after like they do now.  I know I am one of the last of the Dinosaurs, (as my daughter and wife have pointed out to me), but I feel that we need to do away with all the so called experts out there with their PhD' and their EdD' and their new age thinking and approach to education and go back to the basics of the 3 R's Readin, Ritin and Rithmatic.  Lets stop making the school day shorter and classes shorter and stop with the everybody participates and gets a trophy approach to life and start rewarding hard work and excellence and realize that children are not made with cookie cutters and not everyone learns the same way.  When you see a kid coming to school with grease under their fingers he or she may not be cut out for college but would probably flourish in a shop environment, oh yeah, that program got cut because everyone needs to go to college and not learn how to fix things for themselves.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: mattvsmith on July 03, 2013, 10:51:50 PM
KS, if you had stayed a machinist, you would have more work than you could handle.

Yspi, DoL stats, like other gov stats, are as credible as dog poop. I used to supply airline ticket price data for the PPI. The numbers I fed them were real, but meaningless. Worse yet, they didn't even try to collect matching numbers from other airlines. At least then it would have been meaningless apples compared to meaningless apples. This was meaningless apples compared to meaningless holes in socks. Gar. Bage. I'll recommend a website that you will likely hate: Shadow Government Stats.
In DoL's defense, the guy I dealt with was a super nice guy. He just belong in a Sartre play because his job was meaningless.

A lot of these ideas about college are just romanticism. Back when I could use my day's money, I thought it was great to discover myself or whatever. Now it's my money, and I don't have the time or money for romantic idea like having a college experience. I've got bills to pay. Here's the irony: the schools and governments are lassoing in poor and middle class kids with this upperclass idea of "having a college experience". And whereas my dad could afford to just drop cash on Hobart every semester and make it back the next hour, these poor and borderline people are borrowing that money. Then they have to pay it back with interest. It is just another form of "keeping up with the Joneses, which is a game designed to impoverish all non-Joneses. For some kids the gamble works. They borrow money, use it responsibly, and improve their family's status. I say that story is so rare as to be fantasy. Easy money makes people irresponsible. And it gives scam artists (in this case colleges and universities) an opportunity to make cash.

I'm sorry, but criminal justice doesn't need a bachelors degree. A police academy can teach a guy everything he needs to know to be a cop. Even my department, maritime transportation, doesn't really deserve a bachelors degree. It's a vocational program dragged out four years. I could teach my cadets what they need to know about search and rescue in five days. This is not bachelor's degree stuff. It's vocational. Sonoma not just against the politically charged professional victim-status majors. I'm also against vocational majors. But at least vocational majors are useful. We have 100% job placement rate with starting salary being about $40K for a third officer. Women will make the same salary as the men.

D3 schools should consider two paths. Either become vocational schools with job-oriented majors, or become true liberal arts schools like Thomas Aquinas in California or St John's in Annapolis. No majors. Great books. Real thinking, not naval gazing fake liberal arts like at Hobart and other schools in that category. A new greater Great Depression is coming. D3 schools will be on the chopping block. Only those with proven graduation and hiring rates will survive. And even some of those wont be able to survive.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NCF on July 04, 2013, 07:19:45 AM
AMEN!! As an educator (and parent involved in the "college experience" for the last 11 years) I agree with both KS and The Rev. If I weren't posting from my phone, I'd throw my two cents into the mix.:)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on July 04, 2013, 03:18:31 PM
There are many paths to an education - many paths. It's elitist and narrow to think there should be only two.

Calling it "Victim's Studies" is a tragic choice of words and my respect for you has plummeted. If we don't know who we are and where we came from, how are we going to know where we are?

Great books aren't the only thing we should study - we need to study language, culture, traditions, OTHER cultures, even if they scare us and expose our hatred and prejudices. "Victim's Studies" is a horrid choice of words that reflect poorly on you - because who are YOU to stay that the study of minority cultures or traditions isn't worthy AT ALL of any insight or exploration. How dare you! Put yourself in THEIR shoes, not yours and then see why it's important to study those topics. Understanding races, religions, genders, sexualities, everything that makes everyone different is vital, important and crucial. Denigrating them as VICTIM STUDIES smacks of a thought and an agenda that makes me shudder with rage and sadness.

BTW - This is VERY personal for me. You're putting forward that my mixed-race daughters shouldn't have a chance to study in a rigorous, academic setting their race, the culture of their ancestors, the culture of the church they go to (1/4 Liberian immigrants), and the culture and traditions of their best friends (Somalian girls, both of them...). I take offense at that, GREAT offense. Those items have as much merit and academic rigor as traditional western civilization and cultures.

I tend to agree that the Government stats are pretty well accurate - just because they don't conform to YOUR mindset or notions of what is allegedly the right answer doesn't mean they're not accurate. It's an aggregate - done by professionals who are trying hard (no matter what some of the nutballs, henchmen and knuckle-draggers say). You weasel around a bit but fail to recognize that women, for the most part, aren't always on a career trajectory as men because some mouth-breathers in society still don't recognize women's place in society as equals.

I found this about the Shadow Government Statistics web site: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shadow_Government_Statistics

Having gone back into Higher Education fundraising - I don't think it's a scam at all. It costs a LOT of money to offer even the most modest of cirriculums. Maybe you need to get outside of your one college bubble. In my work, I've worked at and with colleges and universities of all stripes, all endowments, all missions and all funding - at all divisions. One size, one path does NOT fit all - QUIT trying base everything on your example.

I changed my thinking when I stepped away from my alma mater and went into consulting and now am back in fundraising.  My current university is not flush with cash at all - there are very few that are 'rolling in it'. If you're tuition based and not endowment based and there hasn't been a spirit of philanthropy and giving back it's a constant struggle to keep programs afloat - much less athletics and co-cirricular activities. There are pretty strict rules on how a college can spend its endowment and what it does with the current use funds.  Have you looked at some of the balance sheets of colleges throughout the spectrum?

KS - You were lucky! Most kids aren't taught TRUE Critical thinking and some, who are sheltered, aren't taught to grapple with things that are outside of their comfort zone or pre-conceived notions and values. I said nothing about losing the trade and vocational education - but not cutting back on other academic focuses for them. Enhance ALL education!

I would rather hire someone who challenged themselves, took initiative. and learned something they wanted to learn instead of someone who cookie-cuttered themselves into a major. A thoughtful, organized Philosophy and Religion major can definitely succeed in almost every field no matter what. I know - I've seen them with my own eyes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on July 04, 2013, 05:30:45 PM
On another note:

I'm definitely going to be noticing a difference between D-2 and D-3 this season. I truly believe in the D-3 model, yet I know that some schools feel they must offer scholarships to field teams or attract male students. It's truly a different world from what I've seen already.

I'm just glad my alma mater and most of the D-3 schools I follow are in EST so i can have breakfast and follow the games before heading to mine.

I'm also in a place where because of conference size, the winner of the conference doesn't get an automatic bid into the D-2 playoffs. Now I'll know what the UAA felt like!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on July 04, 2013, 10:20:21 PM
Smed, AMEN to your first post!  I get so frustrated (and angry) at those pulling the academics card on schools whose mission is to take 'lesser' students and bring them as high as they can go (which sometimes turns out to be med school or PhD).  Yeah, many will not make it, but SOME (who would have been rejected by 'elite' schools) will blossom.

I also agree with a point by KS - I had MANY students at EMU who had been convinced they HAD to go to college, but had no aptitude and, even more important, no interest.  (If they had the interest, I could usually overcome the aptitude/preparation.)  There are oodles of 'students' wasting their time in colleges/universities who have the potential to be good plumbers, electricians, machinists, etc.

(Also, smed, thanks for the 'heads-up' on the tin-foil hat blog Shadow Government Stats.)

One of the points I meant to make 2 days ago but couldn't remember: I shouldn't have included non-profit/for-profit schools in my list of things that don't matter.  There MAY be for-profit schools that are worthy (though I can't think of any).  But the model is fundamentally wrong: a for-profit school has a financial incentive for you to DROP OUT once you have paid tuition (no costs).   

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on July 05, 2013, 01:59:04 AM
I don't know about most but I do know several people who have gotten both Bachelors and Masters from University of Phoenix and have gone on and done very well.  I also know from a couple of friends who work HR that the University of Phoenix is not laughed at.  They seem to have found a niche and done very well with it.  They cut out the majority of core classes and just require the classes pertinent to the desired major.  Most technical schools are for profit schools and they also have their niche.  Are they all legitimate, no but you need to do a little research before giving anyone your money for anything.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on July 05, 2013, 02:09:36 AM
Smed, you are correct about many paths to education.  One of the most educated people I knew was my father.  He dropped out of HS at the end of the 44 school year to enlist in the Navy during WWII.  He received training in the Navy as a radioman but was a Quartermaster on his ship.  He went to radio school after the Navy but dropped out because he was teaching the instructor.  He never got his diploma or GED but was better educated than many teachers and college professors I had.  He read constantly, listened to people and used to learn just for the enjoyment of learning.

The problem is when looking for job in this day and age if you don't have that piece of paper from some school or another you are fighting an uphill battle as too many people are more concerned with the diploma and not with the knowledge.  I know this from experience, a long long time ago when I got out of the Navy, I applied for a job at the NASA wind tunnel facility in Langley, VA.  I had three years experience working with high pressure hydraulic and air systems on board my submarine.  The manager of the facility wanted to hire me but policy pushed the guy with six months tech school and the piece of paper and no experience above me on the hiring list.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on July 05, 2013, 03:43:25 PM
I do think it all depends. Dealing with the HR department here, they have strict rules and protocol. Oh, the rules and protocol. But I think the line "BA degree in X OR equivalent professional experience" should be the way to go.

Some people slag on state and federal paperwork and HR policies but many private companies have the same issues with paper-chasing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 14, 2013, 12:57:33 PM
Here are the 12 brand-new college football programs for 2013 (http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/7/9/4508424/2013-new-college-football-teams)

Thanks to Shoreman on the SAA Football board for the link.

Berry, Hendrix and Southwestern in D-III for 2013.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 17, 2014, 04:58:50 PM
Well, well, well.  The NCAA is about to knuckle under and create a new division for the D-1 haves.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-poised-to-create-separate-division-for-sec--big-ten--acc--pac-12--big-12-212725211.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory

Any bets that the haves will become less likely to want to share the wealth with everyone else once they have their own mudhole to wallow in?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 17, 2014, 05:13:23 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 17, 2014, 04:58:50 PM
Well, well, well.  The NCAA is about to knuckle under and create a new division for the D-1 haves.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-poised-to-create-separate-division-for-sec--big-ten--acc--pac-12--big-12-212725211.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory

Any bets that the haves will become less likely to want to share the wealth with everyone else once they have their own mudhole to wallow in?

Well, the NCAA constitution will mandate the percentage of revenue. I actually think giving this group a little more self-determination will make it more likely they remain in the NCAA. If they broke away and took the television contracts with them, that is the end of college athletics in the other divisions as we know it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 19, 2014, 12:09:29 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 17, 2014, 05:13:23 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 17, 2014, 04:58:50 PM
Well, well, well.  The NCAA is about to knuckle under and create a new division for the D-1 haves.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-poised-to-create-separate-division-for-sec--big-ten--acc--pac-12--big-12-212725211.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory

Any bets that the haves will become less likely to want to share the wealth with everyone else once they have their own mudhole to wallow in?

Well, the NCAA constitution will mandate the percentage of revenue. I actually think giving this group a little more self-determination will make it more likely they remain in the NCAA. If they broke away and took the television contracts with them, that is the end of college athletics in the other divisions as we know it.

The NCAA is going to give them whatever they want.  Without those schools, there is no NCAA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: olddog on January 21, 2014, 08:08:57 PM
Start of professional sports at the college level. Soon players will form a union. When Alabama makes 40m a year on football, huge salaries for coaches, admin, increased donations etc...and players compensation stays the same, something is off base.
This is the end of college football as we know it. This is exactly why I love D1AA to D3 football. Major college football is AAA football at this point, free minor leagues for the pros.  The NFL is all for the NCAA monopoly, hence the owners do not have to pay for a minor league system.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 22, 2014, 01:24:21 PM

THey don't make 40m a year, they take in that much and more, but very few schools even turn a profit on their athletic programs.  They pay it all out to coaches and most are using money from the general fund every year.  I'm not opposed to that if your expenses are reasonable, but giving so much to football and basketball coaches throw off the equation.

It's selfish, but I'm happy to let those big schools do whatever they want so long as they keep throwing 3% our way to keep d3 running.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 24, 2014, 10:51:28 AM
More on the topic from The Chronicle of Higher Education and Gordon Gee, president of WVU (and former president at Ohio State before some ill-advised remarks there caused him to step down):

http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/gordon-gee-on-splintering-the-ncaa-i-would-vote-for-it/34229

QuoteMr. Gee, president of West Virginia University, who has spent his career entrenched in big-time sports, said in an interview with The Chronicle that he would back a plan to create a fourth NCAA division or "leave the NCAA altogether." And he suggested that Mark Emmert, the association's leader, whose work he has long admired, had lost his footing.

Mr. Gee wouldn't say whether he favored a fourth division or a breakaway. But he said that leaving the NCAA would give the wealthiest institutions the chance to "really reinvent the whole nature of the governance structure."

As someone who heads up a school with few of the financial advantages the other "Big 60" schools have, it's somewhat ironic that he wants to associate WVU with a potential break-away group.   I guess he figures its to his school's advantage if it doesn't have to share the wealth it has (or could gain from such a proposal) with everyone else. Shudder.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on January 24, 2014, 12:10:59 PM
What he says may or may not be true, but ain't nobody lining up behind whatever parade Gordon Gee is leading anymore.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on January 29, 2014, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: olddog on January 21, 2014, 08:08:57 PM
Start of professional sports at the college level. Soon players will form a union. When Alabama makes 40m a year on football, huge salaries for coaches, admin, increased donations etc...and players compensation stays the same, something is off base.
This is the end of college football as we know it. This is exactly why I love D1AA to D3 football. Major college football is AAA football at this point, free minor leagues for the pros.  The NFL is all for the NCAA monopoly, hence the owners do not have to pay for a minor league system.

Here you go.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/northwestern-football-team-takes-first-step-in-forming-college-players-union-163217754.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 30, 2014, 12:46:52 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on January 29, 2014, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: olddog on January 21, 2014, 08:08:57 PM
Start of professional sports at the college level. Soon players will form a union. When Alabama makes 40m a year on football, huge salaries for coaches, admin, increased donations etc...and players compensation stays the same, something is off base.
This is the end of college football as we know it. This is exactly why I love D1AA to D3 football. Major college football is AAA football at this point, free minor leagues for the pros.  The NFL is all for the NCAA monopoly, hence the owners do not have to pay for a minor league system.

Here you go.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/northwestern-football-team-takes-first-step-in-forming-college-players-union-163217754.html
The remaining 900 or so schools that would not want to fool with the hassles of unions and "student"-athletes might cause some boards of trustees to ask why don't we go D-3.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2014, 03:13:54 PM
From Facebook:
QuoteBCH Sports
52 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS: McMurry announced it will withdraw its bid to go to Division II. Will stay at Division III for all athletic programs

Ralph Turner, please pick up the courtesy phone. Ralph Turner, please pick up the courtesy phone.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on January 31, 2014, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2014, 03:13:54 PM
From Facebook:
QuoteBCH Sports
52 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS: McMurry announced it will withdraw its bid to go to Division II. Will stay at Division III for all athletic programs

Ralph Turner, please pick up the courtesy phone. Ralph Turner, please pick up the courtesy phone.

Sometimes I wonder who is in charge at these places? I mean, the decision to go D2 shouldn't have been some spur of the moment idea. It should have required a lot of thought and planning. It should have been a decision that once made, was made with at least a 10 year plan in place to make it successful. To turn around after what? 24 months? Maybe, and give up or change your mind or decide its a failure just looks like a school or athletic department that is completely rudderless and lacking leadership. Either that or filled with bumblers who can't do more than act on a whim.

To an outsider, it just looks embarrassing. Yes, no, we don't know, maybe, lets try it, no wait, we take it back, kind of like my 4 year old daughter trying to decide between 2 desserts...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2014, 03:26:32 PM
It does seem like a big waste of time and money for a school that fit the Division III profile very well. Glad they're back, dunno when they'll be eligible for the playoffs again, or whether they would find the new SCAC more enticing than the ASC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 31, 2014, 03:30:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2014, 03:13:54 PM
From Facebook:
QuoteBCH Sports
52 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS: McMurry announced it will withdraw its bid to go to Division II. Will stay at Division III for all athletic programs

Ralph Turner, please pick up the courtesy phone. Ralph Turner, please pick up the courtesy phone.
Pat, my email to you just went out.  Facebook is NSFW.   :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2014, 03:32:09 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 31, 2014, 03:30:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2014, 03:13:54 PM
From Facebook:
QuoteBCH Sports
52 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS: McMurry announced it will withdraw its bid to go to Division II. Will stay at Division III for all athletic programs

Ralph Turner, please pick up the courtesy phone. Ralph Turner, please pick up the courtesy phone.
Pat, my email to you just went out.  Facebook is NSFW.   :)

Appreciate the email. Also looking for your commentary, though. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 31, 2014, 03:53:00 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2014, 03:32:09 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 31, 2014, 03:30:07 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 31, 2014, 03:13:54 PM
From Facebook:
QuoteBCH Sports
52 minutes ago
BREAKING NEWS: McMurry announced it will withdraw its bid to go to Division II. Will stay at Division III for all athletic programs

Ralph Turner, please pick up the courtesy phone. Ralph Turner, please pick up the courtesy phone.
Pat, my email to you just went out.  Facebook is NSFW.   :)

Appreciate the email. Also looking for your commentary, though. :)
I have continued to have a D3 mindset (e.g., my participation on these boards and at D3baseball.com).   :)

I think that I need the dust to settle to see where this lands.  The powers that be have some important decisions to make. 

With Ron Holmes out as AD, the much of the athletic department may be new.  I just hope that Barbara Crousen stays at Track and Field.  We will see how well President Dr Sandra Harper does with the re-configuration.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 31, 2014, 04:18:11 PM
I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, I see jknezek's point. This could do a lot of damage to McMurry's image, simply because it makes the people who run the school look incompetent (unless there's a well-orchestrated public relations campaign by the school that has at its core a reasonable explanation for the double switch), and I certainly don't wish that kind of public embarrassment upon McMurry. On the other hand, Pat's right -- McMurry does fit the D3 profile very well, and goodness knows we need more D3 schools down in Texas, not fewer. Plus, now Ralph has a rooting interest within the D3 ranks again, and I like that. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on January 31, 2014, 04:24:40 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 31, 2014, 04:18:11 PM
I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, I see jknezek's point. This could do a lot of damage to McMurry's image, simply because it makes the people who run the school look incompetent (unless there's a well-orchestrated public relations campaign by the school that has at its core a reasonable explanation for the double switch), and I certainly don't wish that kind of public embarrassment upon McMurry. On the other hand, Pat's right -- McMurry does fit the D3 profile very well, and goodness knows we need more D3 schools down in Texas, not fewer. Plus, now Ralph has a rooting interest within the D3 ranks again, and I like that. :)

My point wasn't that it could do a lot of damage. In the grand scheme I think it hardly matters outside of the kids that thought they would play D2 and aren't going to get that chance without transferring. Most people won't care, won't know, won't matter. It's just to a few of us that actually follow this kind of thing that it looks embarrassing. And within the industry itself it will look bad. But overall, I think the school is a D3 school. Not sure what went into the decision to move up, or the decision to rescind, but they seem to fit at the D3 level. In a couple years, all of this will be a distant asterisk in the history books.

That being said, for a brief period of time, to the few people around that care, it looks ridiculous. Maybe it will be a good warning case to other schools going forward.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on February 01, 2014, 08:31:01 AM
University of New Orleans is mad that McMurry stole its gimmick.

In all seriousness, despite the bumbling, it appears the right choice was eventually made in both cases. Well, in UNO's case, I think it's clear Division III wasn't the right choice because it seemed no one involved with the school really even understood what Division III was about nor wanted to be here. I remain somewhat unconvinced that Division I is the right place for UNO, however.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cush on February 01, 2014, 11:02:13 AM
I'm sure the SCAC would love to have them, maybe moving to another conference saves some face. That would put the SCAC at 5 football school's at 9 overall. They would probably need to even things out at 10 with another football school invite and than hope current member starts a football program to get to 7. CC got the money but maybe not the will. I did read centenary enrollment is way down, below 700. I'm not sure how they can sustain at such levels but starting a football team could bring up the numbers and they still have a nice endowment to pay for it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on February 02, 2014, 10:39:27 AM
Makes you wonder how much thought and research went into moving to d2 in the first place. I am interested to hear the reasons for abandoning the move to d2.

I am glad they are back though. I do not have any connection to Texas, except a sister living in Austin, but looking at McMuuy's profile, D3 seems like such a perfect fit, I never understood the move.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2014, 09:38:33 PM
Thanks to Bmo for this link from the ASC Football board.  Belhaven has hired Hal Mumme. There is speculation that Belhaven will move to D-3.

http://www.wjtv.com/story/24698422/belhaven-applies-for-ncaa-division-iii-membership
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2014, 10:53:17 PM
That's timely and convenient for the ASC, as Belhaven should make a nice replacement member for Mississippi College.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 17, 2014, 02:15:04 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2014, 10:53:17 PM
That's timely and convenient for the ASC, as Belhaven should make a nice replacement member for Mississippi College.
After all of these years...Belhaven would have made a great travel partner for Miss College and made that trip much easier.  It is 180 miles from Pineville LA to Clinton MS!

Louisiana College could have moved over to become travel partners with ETBU, an easy 2 1/4 hour trip up the interstate. LeTourneau pairs UT-Tyler, a 30 minute trip.  The only orphan would have Ozarks in Clarksville AR if Austin College and UT-Dallas are in the ASC-East.  Otherwise, UT-Dallas and Ozarks are the travel partners.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: RLW on March 02, 2014, 07:53:58 PM
When will start playing in DIII and when will we see a schedule from Belhaven and McMurry?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2014, 07:59:09 PM
The move back to D-3 for McMurry has to go thru administrative channels in the NCAA.

Belhaven has to be approved, so I would expect some word on the timeline for Belhaven about July 15th.

I imagine the ASC will take them if they ask to join.  They play football.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 03, 2014, 09:31:31 PM
I have lost track of where the schools stand on the provisional ladder.

Centenary LA becomes a full member in July 2014. The same for Berry.

How far along is everyone else?  Southern Virginia?  SUNY-Alfred? SUNY-Canton? Houghton? Sarah Lawrence?  Valley Forge Christian?

I will appreciate the updates.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on March 03, 2014, 10:40:22 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 03, 2014, 09:31:31 PM
I have lost track of where the schools stand on the provisional ladder.

Centenary LA becomes a full member in July 2014. The same for Berry.

How far along is everyone else?  Southern Virginia?  SUNY-Alfred? SUNY-Canton? Houghton? Sarah Lawrence?  Valley Forge Christian?

I will appreciate the updates.

I believe that Houghton is in their second year of the process.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2014, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 03, 2014, 09:31:31 PM
I have lost track of where the schools stand on the provisional ladder.

Centenary LA becomes a full member in July 2014. The same for Berry.

How far along is everyone else?  Southern Virginia?  SUNY-Alfred? SUNY-Canton? Houghton? Sarah Lawrence?  Valley Forge Christian?

I will appreciate the updates.

Berry is a full member already.
Alfred State is in Year 1.
Southern Virginia is in Year 1.
Not sure on the others.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2014, 04:04:43 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2014, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 03, 2014, 09:31:31 PM
I have lost track of where the schools stand on the provisional ladder.

Centenary LA becomes a full member in July 2014. The same for Berry.

How far along is everyone else?  Southern Virginia?  SUNY-Alfred? SUNY-Canton? Houghton? Sarah Lawrence?  Valley Forge Christian?

I will appreciate the updates.

Berry is a full member already.
Alfred State is in Year 1.
Southern Virginia is in Year 1.
Not sure on the others.
Thanks.  That is right. Berry came in with Covenant.  (Time flies.)


formatting
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 05, 2014, 11:37:50 PM
It's official:   Belhaven's applying for D3.   Hal Mumme is not amused ;-)

http://www.belhaven.edu/news/articles/Belhaven-University-Applies-For-NCAA-Division-III-Membership-2014-03-05.htm

They're headed, as expected, to the ASC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Steve Wiitala on March 06, 2014, 04:51:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 03, 2014, 09:31:31 PM
I have lost track of where the schools stand on the provisional ladder.

Centenary LA becomes a full member in July 2014. The same for Berry.

How far along is everyone else?  Southern Virginia?  SUNY-Alfred? SUNY-Canton? Houghton? Sarah Lawrence?  Valley Forge Christian?

I will appreciate the updates.

Canton is in year II
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2014, 05:29:08 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 05, 2014, 11:37:50 PM
It's official:   Belhaven's applying for D3.   Hal Mumme is not amused ;-)

http://www.belhaven.edu/news/articles/Belhaven-University-Applies-For-NCAA-Division-III-Membership-2014-03-05.htm

They're headed, as expected, to the ASC.

I'd love to see William Carey follow Belhaven into D3. WCU looks like it would be an ideal D3 candidate, as well as an ASC travel partner for Belhaven.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 06, 2014, 07:34:23 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2014, 05:29:08 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 05, 2014, 11:37:50 PM
It's official:   Belhaven's applying for D3.   Hal Mumme is not amused ;-)

http://www.belhaven.edu/news/articles/Belhaven-University-Applies-For-NCAA-Division-III-Membership-2014-03-05.htm

They're headed, as expected, to the ASC.

I'd love to see William Carey follow Belhaven into D3. WCU looks like it would be an ideal D3 candidate, as well as an ASC travel partner for Belhaven.
Respectfully, expanding the footprint of the ASC another 90miles (1.5 hours) east does not strike me as strengthening the ASC.

Hattiesburg to Alpine TX, 985 miles, 14 hours 16 minutes.  That is too far.

Hattiesburg to Abilene 672 miles, 9 hours 49 hours. 

(Hattiesburg MS to Chicago 828 miles.)

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2014, 08:52:53 PM
I was talking about William Carey in terms of being a travel partner with Belhaven, since you had made the same observation about Mississippi College back on February 17.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 06, 2014, 09:53:36 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 06, 2014, 08:52:53 PM
I was talking about William Carey in terms of being a travel partner with Belhaven, since you had made the same observation about Mississippi College back on February 17.
Yes, sir.  Thanks for the comment. Belhaven will take the place of Mississippi College to be the travel partner of Louisiana College.  I objected to the challenge of another 1.5 hours on the bus to get to Hattiesburg, especially from the (former) ASC-West schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 06, 2014, 10:07:02 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 05, 2014, 11:37:50 PM
It's official:   Belhaven's applying for D3.   Hal Mumme is not amused ;-)

http://www.belhaven.edu/news/articles/Belhaven-University-Applies-For-NCAA-Division-III-Membership-2014-03-05.htm

They're headed, as expected, to the ASC.
Thanks for the comment.  Coach Mumme turns 62 this year.  He only stayed at SMU for one year, for whatever reason.  Maybe he is seeing the limits of his career.  Belhaven may be his last chance, but he will spend 4 years in "Provisional" status.

His contributions and the contributions of his students and proteges with the AirRaid Offense are now legendary.  I thought that Coach Mumme could have finished his career at McMurry by building a perennial winner as UMHB Coach Fredenburg has done (and Coach Jimmy Keeling at HSU did) and leave a legacy of a different nature.  Coach Mumme could have very quickly become the winningest football coach in McMurry history.  He would have joined a pantheon of coaches with true legacies. Men's Hoops Coach Herschel Kimbrell and his pupil/protege Coach Ron Holmes coached for a combined 50 years. Track Coach Barbara Crousen has the distinction of being the first and only woman to lead a men's team to an NCAA national championship (outdoor T&F in 2008 and then again in 2012!)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 13, 2014, 06:55:30 PM
ASC has announced the addition of McMurry and Belhaven to the ASC in fall 2014.

Timelines to full D-3 membership have not been announced by the NCAA.

The ASC now goes to 13 members.

I have no idea what this will mean for conference scheduling.  Do they go back to the divisions for some sports, such as hoops and baseball?  (I hope so.)  Double round robin for 24 of the 25 games in basketball would be horrible!

I hope that the SCAC will accept McMurry's swimming program as an affiliate, but those are just my musings.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on March 13, 2014, 07:10:50 PM
Does McMurry have to go through the transitional period thingy?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 13, 2014, 07:25:10 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 13, 2014, 07:10:50 PM
Does McMurry have to go through the transitional period thingy?
I have no idea!  I do not know when they will be eligible for post season play.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 13, 2014, 07:49:27 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 13, 2014, 07:25:10 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 13, 2014, 07:10:50 PM
Does McMurry have to go through the transitional period thingy?
I have no idea!  I do not know when they will be eligible for post season play.

I believe that a school leaving d3, then returning so quickly, is uncharted territory.  Perhaps a transition of just a year or two instead of four?  (Though I'm guessing that the four year period is primarily to ensure that scholarship players are gone before eligibility is given - or in this case, returns.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 13, 2014, 10:09:06 PM
McM has told their scholarship players they will be eligible for athletic scholarships for the next two years as long as they continue playing their sport, so it won't be before '16-'17.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 14, 2014, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 13, 2014, 10:09:06 PM
McM has told their scholarship players they will be eligible for athletic scholarships for the next two years as long as they continue playing their sport, so it won't be before '16-'17.
That makes them a "placeholder" for the Pool A bid for the ASC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 14, 2014, 12:36:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 14, 2014, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 13, 2014, 10:09:06 PM
McM has told their scholarship players they will be eligible for athletic scholarships for the next two years as long as they continue playing their sport, so it won't be before '16-'17.
That makes them a "placeholder" for the Pool A bid for the ASC.

This is an assumption, though -- facts not in evidence. As pointed out, not a lot of precedence for this.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 14, 2014, 02:19:38 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 14, 2014, 12:36:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 14, 2014, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 13, 2014, 10:09:06 PM
McM has told their scholarship players they will be eligible for athletic scholarships for the next two years as long as they continue playing their sport, so it won't be before '16-'17.
That makes them a "placeholder" for the Pool A bid for the ASC.

This is an assumption, though -- facts not in evidence. As pointed out, not a lot of precedence for this.
Thanks.

I guess we need to answer the question whether the ASC remains a Pool A conference with the 7th member being Mississippi College in 2013, that the conference keeps the Pool A bid for 2014 and 2015, then a "full member" McMurry resumes as the 7th full member in 2016.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 14, 2014, 04:42:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 14, 2014, 02:19:38 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 14, 2014, 12:36:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 14, 2014, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 13, 2014, 10:09:06 PM
McM has told their scholarship players they will be eligible for athletic scholarships for the next two years as long as they continue playing their sport, so it won't be before '16-'17.
That makes them a "placeholder" for the Pool A bid for the ASC.

This is an assumption, though -- facts not in evidence. As pointed out, not a lot of precedence for this.
Thanks.

I guess we need to answer the question whether the ASC remains a Pool A conference with the 7th member being Mississippi College in 2013, that the conference keeps the Pool A bid for 2014 and 2015, then a "full member" McMurry resumes as the 7th full member in 2016.

It's a two year grace period, right?  You have two years to get back up to 7 if you drop below.  At least that's what I was told for basketball - I assume it works the same across sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 15, 2014, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 14, 2014, 04:42:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 14, 2014, 02:19:38 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 14, 2014, 12:36:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 14, 2014, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 13, 2014, 10:09:06 PM
McM has told their scholarship players they will be eligible for athletic scholarships for the next two years as long as they continue playing their sport, so it won't be before '16-'17.
That makes them a "placeholder" for the Pool A bid for the ASC.

This is an assumption, though -- facts not in evidence. As pointed out, not a lot of precedence for this.
Thanks.

I guess we need to answer the question whether the ASC remains a Pool A conference with the 7th member being Mississippi College in 2013, that the conference keeps the Pool A bid for 2014 and 2015, then a "full member" McMurry resumes as the 7th full member in 2016.

It's a two year grace period, right?  You have two years to get back up to 7 if you drop below.  At least that's what I was told for basketball - I assume it works the same across sports.
Yes. The addition of Belhaven and McMurry in the ASC conference schedule makes it much easier.  That fills weeks 5-11 with ASC games.

The SCAC schools will need opponents, unless they go to double round robin to get 3 more games in early October.  The ASC can fill their 3 remaining games with SCAC teams. UMHB may get one or two games from the SCAC contingent and then can go national for #10.  Belhaven will help Huntingdon, if the Hawks needs another game.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 26, 2014, 04:39:01 PM
Will the Board of Trustees at Northwestern reconsider the role of college athletics on the Northwestern campus?

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/03/26/college-football-players-can-unionize-federal-agency-says/

They are too big for the CCIW, but the UAA might make a good fit.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 26, 2014, 09:12:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 26, 2014, 04:39:01 PM
Will the Board of Trustees at Northwestern reconsider the role of college athletics on the Northwestern campus?

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/03/26/college-football-players-can-unionize-federal-agency-says/

They are too big for the CCIW, but the UAA might make a good fit.

The Big-10 has threatened to go to a non-scholarship model if they are forced to pay athletes.  I could see the Big-10 continuing to draw fans and make money, but I'm not sure exactly where they'd fit in.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 26, 2014, 09:14:39 PM
I'm sure that Northwestern is hankering to revive its' long-dormant rivalry with former Big Ten member Chicago, Ralph. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 26, 2014, 09:43:59 PM
WAY too much money involved in top competition for the Big Ten to ever actually drop down.  Besides, they could stall a union for practically forever.

I had experience at a lower level (Eastern Michigan University) as a union organizer for lecturers.  First they held us off for 2-3 years by giving the state totally phony numbers on the number of lecturers (to show we didn't have enough signatures) - although their lists had many, many duplicate names and numerous 'lecturers' listed with zero hours taught, we surrendered and submitted a new petition for just 'full-time' lecturers.  After four years, that finally got us to actual hearings.  That's when they brought in the 'professional stallers' attorneys.  We had hearing after hearing postponed because the attorney could not attend (I was directly behind the attorney on two occasions - on both he could not attend on dates that were completely clear in the datebook he was reading from).  After SEVEN years, we finally got a vote.  By that time, they had pissed off so many people we won by an historic 95-2 margin (ironically, if EMU had just allowed a vote at the beginning, I suspect we would have lost).

Bottom line: we are not gonna see Northwestern in d3.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 26, 2014, 09:47:41 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 26, 2014, 09:43:59 PM
WAY too much money involved in top competition for the Big Ten to ever actually drop down.  Besides, they could stall a union for practically forever.

I had experience at a lower level (Eastern Michigan University) as a union organizer for lecturers.  First they held us off for 2-3 years by giving the state totally phony numbers on the number of lecturers (to show we didn't have enough signatures) - although their lists had many, many duplicate names and numerous 'lecturers' listed with zero hours taught, we surrendered and submitted a new petition for just 'full-time' lecturers.  After four years, that finally got us to actual hearings.  That's when they brought in the 'professional stallers' attorneys.  We had hearing after hearing postponed because the attorney could not attend (I was directly behind the attorney on two occasions - on both he could not attend on dates that were completely clear in the datebook he was reading from).  After SEVEN years, we finally got a vote.  By that time, they had pissed off so many people we won by an historic 95-2 margin (ironically, if EMU had just allowed a vote at the beginning, I suspect we would have lost).

Bottom line: we are not gonna see Northwestern in d3.
I appreciate the insightful post.  +1!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 27, 2014, 08:23:53 AM

We won't see any Big-10 schools in d3, but we may see them go to a non-scholarship model is push comes to shove.  There's no reason to think the fan base or the tv revenue would leave if they changed compensation models.  You're going to be able to draw good athletes to good schools and good programs regardless of money - after all, that's why d3 exists and succeeds.

I imagine paying athletes will bring with it its own set of complications.  It's not like the current Big-10 us really competing with the SEC as it is.  You're still going to get pro prospects choosing the Big-10 for exposure and (gasp) education.

The commissioner has already threatened doing away with scholarships if need be.  I could see it happening.


(I don't think it will happen, but I could see it.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 27, 2014, 12:09:53 PM
Couldn't see Northwestern in the UAA? :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 27, 2014, 04:19:31 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 27, 2014, 12:09:53 PM
Couldn't see Northwestern in the UAA? :)
Which tells me that the respected opinion of Mr Coleman is

the panache of the UAA trumps the panache of the Big-10.   :)

I wonder about some privates who might not want to play the game.

Northwestern, Southern Methodist, Rice, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Tulsa...

or the next round of schools...

Duke, Stanford, Wake Forest,

Then the Next Round (and less likely)

Baylor, TCU, BYU.

Do Georgetown, St Johns, Seton Hall, Providence want to pay for basketball players?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on March 27, 2014, 10:25:41 PM
Seems I recall Tulane and maybe Rice flirting with the d3 idea.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on March 27, 2014, 10:34:31 PM
The kid who is organizing this and was the starting qb last season at Northwestern was on Mike and Mike this morning and explained that what they want is not to get paid.  It has been ruled that scholarship athletes are unpaid employees, what they are trying to accomplish by unionizing is getting medical benefits for the athletes, apparently the NCAA does not require a school to cover a lot of the medical expenses and once their scholarship is done, there is no follow up care for them.  He said that they did want to be paid for the use of their likeness and jersey sales etc, which I do agree with. 

I believe that I heard someone on another show talking about the same thing and how possibly that is money that would be placed into some type of investment account for the players and teach them how to manage it.

Then the issue was brought up on Mike and Mike about whether or not the scholarships would become taxable income if the players do unionize.  Someone said that because a scholarship was basically a grant in place it was not taxable, but I could definitely see the IRS getting that one changed.  At graduation, The Dean hands you your diploma and right next to him is the IRS agent handing you your tax bill.  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 28, 2014, 08:33:59 AM
Quote from: ADL70 on March 27, 2014, 10:25:41 PM
Seems I recall Tulane and maybe Rice flirting with the d3 idea.

I don't know how actual the flirtations were but the Houston Chronicle strongly implied Rice *should* go D3 and used Trinity as a model - way back in 2004.  http://www.chron.com/sports/college/article/Lopez-Rice-should-take-note-of-Trinity-s-peace-1966831.php
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 28, 2014, 08:35:05 AM
The big argument is always that so many of the players don't actually earn the money - it's a small percentage that are really worth something.

My thought is simply, let them play off that themselves.  Allow endorsements, autograph sales, etc.  Give the kids a percentage of the sales of their gear.

If you let them capitalize off their celebrity (and, by all means, give them proper medical coverage), then the ones with real celebrity can benefit and those who are happy with a college degree can take advantage of it.

The schools aren't out much extra money and the system stay intact.  It wouldn't take much for the NCAA to make those changes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: David Collinge on March 28, 2014, 09:27:19 PM
Tulane's "flirtation" with D3 was like a drunk guy flirting with a girl at a party just to make his wife jealous. They never had the least intention to go D3 or even seriously explore it; it was just an idle threat aimed at the booster community.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 28, 2014, 09:33:08 PM
... whereas the flirtation with D3 of Tulane's neighbor the University of New Orleans was like a drunk guy who hits on a girl at a party just to make his wife jealous, only to be asked the next day why he had spent the entire party trying to sweet-talk a hatrack.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 29, 2014, 01:40:06 AM
We're the hatrack? :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on March 29, 2014, 08:47:15 PM
You know what looks good on a hatrack? The BeltTM.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 30, 2014, 09:50:16 PM
Yep. We're the hatrack. We're just the thing if you're looking for a place to hang your hat. And we're not what you're looking for if you're in the mood for some sweet, sweet loving. :)

Quote from: Just Bill on March 29, 2014, 08:47:15 PM
You know what looks good on a hatrack? The BeltTM.

All conversations, like all roads, eventually lead to The BeltTM.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on March 31, 2014, 11:54:44 AM
I think UNO was "drunk" for more than one night ...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 22, 2014, 09:40:28 PM
From the "What we are reading" section on the front page of D3football.com

Something to keep on the radar (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/statecolleges/uw-superior-moves-to-leave-wiac-for-minnesota-conference-b99252592z1-256049331.html).

The 6 WIAC schools would move to Pool B for Baseball in 2018, if this goes thru.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on April 23, 2014, 01:01:45 PM
Would they add football?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on April 24, 2014, 10:10:07 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on April 23, 2014, 01:01:45 PM
Would they add football?
As a member of the WIAC I would have said never, but as a member of the UMAC, I'd say not right now, but perhaps down the road. There was simply no way for Superior to create an even semi-competitive football program in the WIAC. But as we know, if enrollment is an issue investing in football is usually an enrollment booster. In the UMAC, maybe, but I wouldn't run out and buy season tickets just yet.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on May 02, 2014, 02:28:54 PM
I am disappointed to post this, I am sad to see some D3 schools on this List.

55 Colleges Under Investigation Over  Handling Of Sexual Violence Complaints

http://us.cnn.com/2014/05/01/us/colleges-sex-complaint-investigations/index.html?c=&page=0

http://www.cnn.com/2014/images/05/01/sex_assault.pdf

Quote"We hope this increased transparency will spur community dialogue about this important issue. I also want to make it clear that a college or university's appearance on this list and being the subject of a Title IX investigation in no way indicates at this stage that the college or university is violating or has violated the law."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/us/colleges-sex-complaint-reactions/index.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on May 02, 2014, 03:04:11 PM
Pretty big cross section of school types. Most with very strong names. Methinks the justice department is making a point. we don't care who you are and how powerful you think you are, you need to be doing a better job. This is a scare them all straight tactic by making some very strong examples
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 03, 2014, 11:39:58 AM
Quote from: jknezek on May 02, 2014, 03:04:11 PM
Pretty big cross section of school types. Most with very strong names. Methinks the justice department is making a point. we don't care who you are and how powerful you think you are, you need to be doing a better job. This is a scare them all straight tactic by making some very strong examples


Justice was very clear in saying there is no presumption of guilt.  I believe these names are on this list solely because someone from campus appealed to them for investigation.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on May 03, 2014, 12:24:08 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on May 03, 2014, 11:39:58 AM
Quote from: jknezek on May 02, 2014, 03:04:11 PM
Pretty big cross section of school types. Most with very strong names. Methinks the justice department is making a point. we don't care who you are and how powerful you think you are, you need to be doing a better job. This is a scare them all straight tactic by making some very strong examples


Justice was very clear in saying there is no presumption of guilt.  I believe these names are on this list solely because someone from campus appealed to them for investigation.

100% agree with the first part.  Too diverse a sample with too many well known names for it to be completely outside driven. This is a message sent to all universities. Schools live on reputation and will try harder going forward to make sure they don't end up on a publicized list like this, let alone one that claims real wrongdoing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on May 04, 2014, 04:58:41 PM
Also... some of these schools are not in trouble for Title IX issues with their athletics departments... but other on-campus discrimination or whatever problems that fall under Title IX.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on May 07, 2014, 02:14:42 PM
Officially, UW-Superior leaves the WIAC for the UMAC in 2015-16. Except for ice hockey.

http://www.wiacsports.com/news/2014/5/7/GEN_0507142824.aspx
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Cubbieboy on May 15, 2014, 10:14:22 PM
DIII baseball conference & regionals should all have internet streaming (with multiple camera angles) available (or the regional should not be allowed to host)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 15, 2014, 10:41:59 PM
Can't argue with that, but I'll just say that sometimes there are not multiple schools willing to even bid to host a regional. It's a pretty thankless job.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on May 15, 2014, 11:05:47 PM
And it's hard to do since the semester has usually ended, so the student work force is depleted. It's also the only non-Finals site bid in Division III that is pre-determined and therefore the host school is not guaranteed to be participating.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: lefty2 on May 20, 2014, 09:33:11 PM
When a school bids to host a baseball regional, they are bidding to host a baseball tournament - not produce a tv show. 

While not required, we provided video for every game the last two years.

As far as conference tournaments, there are many sites that don't even have internet access.

Thankfully, if a host school makes the tournament, they are guaranteed to play in their home regional.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on May 30, 2014, 06:19:49 PM
Well, well, the other shoe finally dropped, the SEC (and the so-called Power 5 conferences by extension) threaten the NCAA to either give them more autonomy or they'll take their ball and form a "Division IV".

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11008001/sec-ponders-potential-move-division-iv-ncaa-provide-autonomy

QuoteSEC Commissioner Mike Slive said if the Power Five conferences -- which also include the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big 12, the Power Ten and the Pac-12 -- don't get the flexibility needed to create their own bylaws, the next step would be to move to "Division IV."

"It's not something we want to do," Slive said on the final day of the SEC meetings. "We want to the ability to have autonomy in areas that has a nexus to the well-being of student athletes. I am somewhat optimistic it will pass, but if it doesn't, our league would certainly want to move to a Division IV. My colleagues, I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd be surprised if they didn't feel the same way."

I think Division Zero is a better name.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 31, 2014, 04:39:42 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on May 30, 2014, 06:19:49 PM
Well, well, the other shoe finally dropped, the SEC (and the so-called Power 5 conferences by extension) threaten the NCAA to either give them more autonomy or they'll take their ball and form a "Division IV".

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11008001/sec-ponders-potential-move-division-iv-ncaa-provide-autonomy

QuoteSEC Commissioner Mike Slive said if the Power Five conferences -- which also include the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big 12, the Power Ten and the Pac-12 -- don't get the flexibility needed to create their own bylaws, the next step would be to move to "Division IV."

"It's not something we want to do," Slive said on the final day of the SEC meetings. "We want to the ability to have autonomy in areas that has a nexus to the well-being of student athletes. I am somewhat optimistic it will pass, but if it doesn't, our league would certainly want to move to a Division IV. My colleagues, I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd be surprised if they didn't feel the same way."

I think Division Zero is a better name.

That's way, way more preferable than ditching the NCAA altogether.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on May 31, 2014, 05:29:40 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on May 31, 2014, 04:39:42 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on May 30, 2014, 06:19:49 PM
Well, well, the other shoe finally dropped, the SEC (and the so-called Power 5 conferences by extension) threaten the NCAA to either give them more autonomy or they'll take their ball and form a "Division IV".

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11008001/sec-ponders-potential-move-division-iv-ncaa-provide-autonomy

QuoteSEC Commissioner Mike Slive said if the Power Five conferences -- which also include the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big 12, the Power Ten and the Pac-12 -- don't get the flexibility needed to create their own bylaws, the next step would be to move to "Division IV."

"It's not something we want to do," Slive said on the final day of the SEC meetings. "We want to the ability to have autonomy in areas that has a nexus to the well-being of student athletes. I am somewhat optimistic it will pass, but if it doesn't, our league would certainly want to move to a Division IV. My colleagues, I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd be surprised if they didn't feel the same way."

I think Division Zero is a better name.

That's way, way more preferable than ditching the NCAA altogether.

You know, if you subscribe to the theory that Division I is the "highest" form of collegiate athletics, then "Division IV" might suit those schools perfectly well ...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on May 31, 2014, 06:23:09 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on May 31, 2014, 04:39:42 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on May 30, 2014, 06:19:49 PM
Well, well, the other shoe finally dropped, the SEC (and the so-called Power 5 conferences by extension) threaten the NCAA to either give them more autonomy or they'll take their ball and form a "Division IV".

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11008001/sec-ponders-potential-move-division-iv-ncaa-provide-autonomy

QuoteSEC Commissioner Mike Slive said if the Power Five conferences -- which also include the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big 12, the Power Ten and the Pac-12 -- don't get the flexibility needed to create their own bylaws, the next step would be to move to "Division IV."

"It's not something we want to do," Slive said on the final day of the SEC meetings. "We want to the ability to have autonomy in areas that has a nexus to the well-being of student athletes. I am somewhat optimistic it will pass, but if it doesn't, our league would certainly want to move to a Division IV. My colleagues, I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd be surprised if they didn't feel the same way."

I think Division Zero is a better name.

That's way, way more preferable than ditching the NCAA altogether.


Initially, you may be right, but once they have their own little division how long do you think it will be until they start saying "we don't want any of our money going to any D1 schools or anyone but our division" ?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 02, 2014, 07:40:12 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on May 31, 2014, 06:23:09 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on May 31, 2014, 04:39:42 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on May 30, 2014, 06:19:49 PM
Well, well, the other shoe finally dropped, the SEC (and the so-called Power 5 conferences by extension) threaten the NCAA to either give them more autonomy or they'll take their ball and form a "Division IV".

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11008001/sec-ponders-potential-move-division-iv-ncaa-provide-autonomy

QuoteSEC Commissioner Mike Slive said if the Power Five conferences -- which also include the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big 12, the Power Ten and the Pac-12 -- don't get the flexibility needed to create their own bylaws, the next step would be to move to "Division IV."

"It's not something we want to do," Slive said on the final day of the SEC meetings. "We want to the ability to have autonomy in areas that has a nexus to the well-being of student athletes. I am somewhat optimistic it will pass, but if it doesn't, our league would certainly want to move to a Division IV. My colleagues, I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd be surprised if they didn't feel the same way."

I think Division Zero is a better name.

That's way, way more preferable than ditching the NCAA altogether.


Initially, you may be right, but once they have their own little division how long do you think it will be until they start saying "we don't want any of our money going to any D1 schools or anyone but our division" ?

A few years more than it would be if they just left the NCAA now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sbparent on August 11, 2014, 05:05:53 PM
Looks like D3 Presidents want to cut back on number of games played all sports except football and cross country.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-iii-presidents-council-approves-cost-cutting-measures-eyes-future-deficits?division=d3

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on August 11, 2014, 06:29:49 PM
I wonder if any of this is reaction to what is going on in D1 and some of the recent rulings.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on August 12, 2014, 07:53:00 AM
I don't think particular piece is. That's been discussed for a long time. We'll see if it passes a vote of the full D-III membership.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on August 12, 2014, 08:40:58 AM
Considering the size of the ODAC in sports like men's and women's soccer I'm somewhat surprised they were a sponsoring conference for this. Already the ODAC has almost eliminated non-conf games in some sports to accommodate the membership and plays non-balanced schedules. I suppose it doesn't really matter so long as there is a conference tourney to decide the at-large, but it's going to get to the point where the ODAC will need divisions with limited crossover in some sports if they cut too many games out.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 12, 2014, 08:51:46 AM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on August 11, 2014, 06:29:49 PM
I wonder if any of this is reaction to what is going on in D1 and some of the recent rulings.

I'm excited.  I thought the big conferences were going to bolt the NCAA altogether by now.  This will keep them around a little longer, but perhaps give the rest of the NCAA the push to actually figure out an alternative funding formula for the day they no longer have the March Madness cash cow.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 13, 2014, 01:07:30 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on August 12, 2014, 07:53:00 AM
I don't think particular piece is. That's been discussed for a long time. We'll see if it passes a vote of the full D-III membership.

Been discussed for a *real* long time. Similar proposal was voted down about a decade ago by a 55-45 margin as well.

I'm not in favor of anything that applies a blanket solution to (most) every sport. If we think there are some sports where the number of contests is excessive, let's focus our efforts there.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sbparent on August 13, 2014, 11:36:26 AM
Have one daughter that played D3 softball and one still playing.  Coach tells them before registering for spring classes what days they will miss.  Its very few days.  I am sure you can take an athletes days missed for sports and it is much less than the normal student skips. Maybe we are an isolated case.  Not sure how a 10% reduction in games really helps that much.  Seems a lot of northern schools go south during their spring break and play 10 -12 games. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on August 13, 2014, 04:04:46 PM
Quote from: sbparent on August 13, 2014, 11:36:26 AM
Have one daughter that played D3 softball and one still playing.  Coach tells them before registering for spring classes what days they will miss.  Its very few days.  I am sure you can take an athletes days missed for sports and it is much less than the normal student skips. Maybe we are an isolated case.  Not sure how a 10% reduction in games really helps that much.  Seems a lot of northern schools go south during their spring break and play 10 -12 games.
same thing for Baseball. Northern teams go South or west during Spring break. In the Mid-East region in Baseball there are plenty of teams close enough that when playing a game during the week, that they are not missing much school for an away game and possibly not any for a week day home game. I think out west, considering that they start earlier, can get the  current number of games in during the weekends. Dropping baseball 3 or 4 baseball games from the schedule will just spread the games played in the west even farther apart. I guess the teams out west could opt to start a week later.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: gobash83 on August 19, 2014, 09:39:43 AM
Quote from: sbparent on August 13, 2014, 11:36:26 AM
Have one daughter that played D3 softball and one still playing.  Coach tells them before registering for spring classes what days they will miss.  Its very few days.  I am sure you can take an athletes days missed for sports and it is much less than the normal student skips. Maybe we are an isolated case.  Not sure how a 10% reduction in games really helps that much.  Seems a lot of northern schools go south during their spring break and play 10 -12 games.

I am not sure you are an isolated case.  My daughter plays D3 soccer and last season missed 1 class day (for the first round of the conference tournament).  Her games were one during the week (with an opponent within 1-2 hour drive) and a weekend.  I realize that being in the Midwest may make it easier for schools to find opponents within close proximity but I suspect this is driven more by finances than missed class days. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sbparent on August 19, 2014, 11:59:45 AM
gobash83 You are probably correct that it is more about finances but the article presented it as more of a student out of class time.  With this and the fact that NCAA is looking at ways to cut back on D3 champions I am glad my daughter only has 2 years left.  This season is safe for the schedule cut backs this year and hopefully it will not go into effect until the 2017 season.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 24, 2014, 01:30:51 PM
Also from the article...

Also, FTA...

QuoteThe council sponsored convention legislation that would add women's sand volleyball as a sport in Division III and establish a National Collegiate Championship for the sport. The first sand volleyball championship would tentatively be scheduled to be held in 2016. The council noted that National Collegiate Championships do not have an impact on Division III's budget.

Curious.

I am not sure what this does to Title IX dynamics.  A "duplicate" sport, adding very few "unique" student-athletes to the equation...

I will appreciate thoughts.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 25, 2014, 09:14:46 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 24, 2014, 01:30:51 PM
Also from the article...

Also, FTA...

QuoteThe council sponsored convention legislation that would add women's sand volleyball as a sport in Division III and establish a National Collegiate Championship for the sport. The first sand volleyball championship would tentatively be scheduled to be held in 2016. The council noted that National Collegiate Championships do not have an impact on Division III's budget.

Curious.

I am not sure what this does to Title IX dynamics.  A "duplicate" sport, adding very few "unique" student-athletes to the equation...

I will appreciate thoughts.

I wonder what the specifics of this are.  Typically a "team" is just two players.  I wonder if they'll do a tennis-like format with several pairs of players facing off?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on August 25, 2014, 10:38:29 AM
Here you go:

http://www.collegesand.org/

Column on left describes two formats.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on August 26, 2014, 11:16:22 AM
Think of Sand Volleyball as dual match tennis. Five pairs of athletes ranked 1-5 make up a team. They play another team and whoever wins more of the five matches wins the dual.

At the Division I level, they have surprisingly found less crossover from traditional 6-person volleyball to sand volleyball than expected. Most of the D-I teams only have a few that play both, and typically the best players focus on only one. That might not hold true if Division III schools begin adding it, but we'll have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on August 26, 2014, 12:40:53 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on August 26, 2014, 11:16:22 AM
Think of Sand Volleyball as dual match tennis. Five pairs of athletes ranked 1-5 make up a team. They play another team and whoever wins more of the five matches wins the dual.

At the Division I level, they have surprisingly found less crossover from traditional 6-person volleyball to sand volleyball than expected. Most of the D-I teams only have a few that play both, and typically the best players focus on only one. That might not hold true if Division III schools begin adding it, but we'll have to wait and see.

If there was a lot of cross over between Sand and traditional VB at the D3 level, would that not fly in the face or be contradictory of the other items being reviewed such as number of games played. Since these two sports would take up two separate seasons? If a student played both that would be more time away from academics and the college life experience.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on August 26, 2014, 02:11:56 PM
Compare to distance runners who compete in XC and both indoor and outdoor T&F.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on August 26, 2014, 02:26:15 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on August 26, 2014, 02:11:56 PM
Compare to distance runners who compete in XC and both indoor and outdoor T&F.
Good point +1
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on August 26, 2014, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on August 26, 2014, 02:11:56 PM
Compare to distance runners who compete in XC and both indoor and outdoor T&F.

Which is, frankly, a huge loophole. Considering at this level, you'd be hard-pressed to find a school with different indoor and outdoor track coaches. That's pretty much WHY sand volleyball can happen. I just can't wait until "Outdoor 3x3 Basketball" is pushed for. Don't laugh ...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 27, 2014, 07:40:35 AM
Quote from: sunny on August 26, 2014, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on August 26, 2014, 02:11:56 PM
Compare to distance runners who compete in XC and both indoor and outdoor T&F.

Which is, frankly, a huge loophole. Considering at this level, you'd be hard-pressed to find a school with different indoor and outdoor track coaches. That's pretty much WHY sand volleyball can happen. I just can't wait until "Outdoor 3x3 Basketball" is pushed for. Don't laugh ...

If you've already got the coaching staff and insurance for football, why not add rugby 7s, especially since it's an olympic sport now?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on August 27, 2014, 08:42:29 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 27, 2014, 07:40:35 AM
Quote from: sunny on August 26, 2014, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on August 26, 2014, 02:11:56 PM
Compare to distance runners who compete in XC and both indoor and outdoor T&F.

Which is, frankly, a huge loophole. Considering at this level, you'd be hard-pressed to find a school with different indoor and outdoor track coaches. That's pretty much WHY sand volleyball can happen. I just can't wait until "Outdoor 3x3 Basketball" is pushed for. Don't laugh ...

If you've already got the coaching staff and insurance for football, why not add rugby 7s, especially since it's an olympic sport now?

Coaching for football and rugby are completely different. The strength coach might come in handy, but that's about it. Rugby 7s would have more in common with soccer than football in a lot of ways, although that isn't real close either. I love rugby 7s and played union at the club level in college, but that's a very big stretch.  I'm assuming you mean add the women's sport as well, not the men's. Adding the men's would most likely require adding the women's or some other women's sport, not necessarily the reverse.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 28, 2014, 08:44:21 AM
Quote from: jknezek on August 27, 2014, 08:42:29 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on August 27, 2014, 07:40:35 AM
Quote from: sunny on August 26, 2014, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on August 26, 2014, 02:11:56 PM
Compare to distance runners who compete in XC and both indoor and outdoor T&F.

Which is, frankly, a huge loophole. Considering at this level, you'd be hard-pressed to find a school with different indoor and outdoor track coaches. That's pretty much WHY sand volleyball can happen. I just can't wait until "Outdoor 3x3 Basketball" is pushed for. Don't laugh ...

If you've already got the coaching staff and insurance for football, why not add rugby 7s, especially since it's an olympic sport now?

Coaching for football and rugby are completely different. The strength coach might come in handy, but that's about it. Rugby 7s would have more in common with soccer than football in a lot of ways, although that isn't real close either. I love rugby 7s and played union at the club level in college, but that's a very big stretch.  I'm assuming you mean add the women's sport as well, not the men's. Adding the men's would most likely require adding the women's or some other women's sport, not necessarily the reverse.

Well, you see unqualified coaches doing golf and tennis all the time at smaller schools.  I'm not saying its smart, necessarily - just that it would be possible.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on October 09, 2014, 09:24:25 PM
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-iii-committee-explores-options-graduate-students

In my opinion these all sound like reason a ble changes, that benefit the student athlete.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on October 09, 2014, 09:40:08 PM
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-committee-voices-opposition-football-proposal?division=d3

And another one. I do not quite understand the early graduation item. In the example do thet intend to allow the baseball player who graduates in December to compete in the spring, or prevent him from competing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 09, 2014, 11:07:09 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on October 09, 2014, 09:24:25 PM
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-iii-committee-explores-options-graduate-students

In my opinion these all sound like reason a ble changes, that benefit the student athlete.

D1 allows grad students to play for a school other than the one from which they graduated. Sounds like D3's moving in that direction as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 10, 2014, 09:29:31 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 09, 2014, 11:07:09 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on October 09, 2014, 09:24:25 PM
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-iii-committee-explores-options-graduate-students

In my opinion these all sound like reason a ble changes, that benefit the student athlete.

D1 allows grad students to play for a school other than the one from which they graduated. Sounds like D3's moving in that direction as well.

I imagine this would be pretty rare in d3, given the lack of scholarships.  As far as I know, in order to qualify one has to be enrolled in a graduate program that doesn't exist at your alma mater.  A lot of times, when d1 players do it, they're taking classes towards a degree they never intend to get.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on October 10, 2014, 12:18:42 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on October 10, 2014, 09:29:31 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 09, 2014, 11:07:09 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on October 09, 2014, 09:24:25 PM
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-iii-committee-explores-options-graduate-students

In my opinion these all sound like reason a ble changes, that benefit the student athlete.

D1 allows grad students to play for a school other than the one from which they graduated. Sounds like D3's moving in that direction as well.

A lot of times, when d1 players do it, they're taking classes towards a degree they never intend to get.

Citation please...

They have to have their undergrad degree to do this; plus many students take graduate level courses but don't go for a graduate degree. They get a certificate (teaching) or need a course for work or licensing...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 10, 2014, 05:53:10 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on October 10, 2014, 09:29:31 AMI imagine this would be pretty rare in d3, given the lack of scholarships.  As far as I know, in order to qualify one has to be enrolled in a graduate program that doesn't exist at your alma mater.

I don't think it'll be all that rare, HF. Lots of D3 schools don't have any grad programs at all. And other D3 schools do.

Quote from: smedindy on October 10, 2014, 12:18:42 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on October 10, 2014, 09:29:31 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 09, 2014, 11:07:09 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on October 09, 2014, 09:24:25 PM
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-iii-committee-explores-options-graduate-students

In my opinion these all sound like reason a ble changes, that benefit the student athlete.

D1 allows grad students to play for a school other than the one from which they graduated. Sounds like D3's moving in that direction as well.

A lot of times, when d1 players do it, they're taking classes towards a degree they never intend to get.

Citation please...

They have to have their undergrad degree to do this; plus many students take graduate level courses but don't go for a graduate degree. They get a certificate (teaching) or need a course for work or licensing...

Thing is, though, we're talking about more than just a course or two. The NCAA's full-time enrollment rules for participation still apply to grad students, even though grad students may be in a different semester-hours or quarter-hours format than the undergrads at the same school.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on October 10, 2014, 06:42:07 PM
I understand that. One of my student workers is a full-time non-degree seeking post bac student. (She's getting an endorsement for elementary ed...but not a masters).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 11, 2014, 09:01:10 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 10, 2014, 05:53:10 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on October 10, 2014, 09:29:31 AMI imagine this would be pretty rare in d3, given the lack of scholarships.  As far as I know, in order to qualify one has to be enrolled in a graduate program that doesn't exist at your alma mater.

I don't think it'll be all that rare, HF. Lots of D3 schools don't have any grad programs at all. And other D3 schools do.

Quote from: smedindy on October 10, 2014, 12:18:42 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on October 10, 2014, 09:29:31 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 09, 2014, 11:07:09 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on October 09, 2014, 09:24:25 PM
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-iii-committee-explores-options-graduate-students

In my opinion these all sound like reason a ble changes, that benefit the student athlete.

D1 allows grad students to play for a school other than the one from which they graduated. Sounds like D3's moving in that direction as well.

A lot of times, when d1 players do it, they're taking classes towards a degree they never intend to get.

Citation please...

They have to have their undergrad degree to do this; plus many students take graduate level courses but don't go for a graduate degree. They get a certificate (teaching) or need a course for work or licensing...

Thing is, though, we're talking about more than just a course or two. The NCAA's full-time enrollment rules for participation still apply to grad students, even though grad students may be in a different semester-hours or quarter-hours format than the undergrads at the same school.


Right, but without the scholarships, an athlete is still going to choose a school based on the degree program they want.  If that program isn't offered at their alma mater and their new school has a place for them on a sports team and they have eligibility left and they want to dedicate the time to play some more, then it will work out.  I'm not saying it won't happen or that it's bad, just that I think it'll be more rare in d3 than it is in d1.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 12, 2014, 02:37:07 PM
Well, of course, but that's because D3 schools tend to be much smaller than D1 schools, and many D3 schools don't even offer graduate programs at all -- and if they do, they don't tend to have the variety of grad programs that D1 schools offer.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 20, 2014, 10:55:38 AM
Basically... they are making sure that seniors are at least taking classes in order to compete in the final semester. There are some seniors who can graduate in December, for example, and they probably don't want them then competing the next semester if they are not technically in school. It comes down to the student-athlete deciding which is better for them: graduate in December and not play, or hold off and take a few credits to play.

Remember, a senior doesn't have to take a full credit load (to be considered a full time student) in their final semester and still compete... this is just expanding that to indicate they have to at least be taking classes (undergrad, grad, whatever), as I understand it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2014, 02:37:16 PM
(This has always been a good message board for serious discussion of institutional issues.)

Brian C. Rosenberg, President of Macalester College, suggests this action against UNC-Chapel Hill in Chronicle of Higher Education.

FTA

Quote..The crime involves fundamental academic integrity. The response, regardless of the visibility or reputation or wealth of the institution, should be to suspend accredited status until there is evidence that an appropriate level of integrity is both culturally and structurally in place.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/10/24/unc-chapel-hill-should-lose-accreditation/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on October 28, 2014, 02:43:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2014, 02:37:16 PM
(This has always been a good message board for serious discussion of institutional issues.)

Brian C. Rosenberg, President of Macalester College, suggests this action against UNC-Chapel Hill in Chronicle of Higher Education.

FTA

Quote..The crime involves fundamental academic integrity. The response, regardless of the visibility or reputation or wealth of the institution, should be to suspend accredited status until there is evidence that an appropriate level of integrity is both culturally and structurally in place.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2014/10/24/unc-chapel-hill-should-lose-accreditation/

It's not a bad idea, but I'm pretty sure these classes were shut down a few years ago and the major players are no longer at the school. So at this point, pulling the accreditation hurts the wrong people, like the graduating seniors. We always have these problems punishing long after an action. I'm not sure what the solution is here.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2014, 03:28:54 PM
Dr Rosenberg is questioning the academic integrity of the institution that permitted this to go "unchecked" for years. 

It begs the question of the academic integrity as it relates to all degrees issued by the institution during this time.

How can SACS permit this type of failure of academic oversight in one of its accredited instituitions?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on October 28, 2014, 03:39:37 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 28, 2014, 03:28:54 PM

How can SACS permit this type of failure of academic oversight in one of its accredited instituitions?

Now that is a really good question. What good is the watchdog if they aren't catching the important issues? I was getting my MBA at FAU when the graduate programs came under their periodic accreditation review. There were people in the classes, reviewing professors, even looking at assignments. It was comprehensive and had the people at FAU hopping for weeks. Not sure how UNC could skate some of this stuff through.

Either way, UNC and its alumni should be thoroughly embarrassed by all of this. Whether it was done to aid athletes or others it doesn't matter. It's horribly, horribly embarrassing to an institution of higher education.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 03:15:17 PM
Are there schools or programs in jeopardy of being dropped because of finances or numbers?

Marnataha's struggles in football have me thinking about this? I know some colleges are struggling with finances.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on November 18, 2014, 12:59:26 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 03:15:17 PM
Are there schools or programs in jeopardy of being dropped because of finances or numbers?

Marnataha's struggles in football have me thinking about this? I know some colleges are struggling with finances.

I think Maranatha's struggles this year has to do with a late hiring of a head coach thus having very little time to go out and get players for the team. They haven't had big rosters from watching them play against the NACC and other teams. Unfortunately, there isn't that many fellow NCCAA schools out there that sponsor football for them to play against.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on November 18, 2014, 02:11:49 PM
I know their were several programs recently (2013) started programs. Actually some schools look at it as a money maker. It brings young men to their campus that may have otherwise not matriculated there.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Tekken on November 18, 2014, 05:16:23 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 16, 2014, 03:15:17 PM
Are there schools or programs in jeopardy of being dropped because of finances or numbers?

I'd heard Centenary was in dire straits last Spring regarding enrollment figures.  At one point I believe they were even offering free housing to attract students.  My source isn't the most reliable, but brought it up in a venue where there was no reason to exaggerate about it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 18, 2014, 05:19:10 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on November 18, 2014, 02:11:49 PM
I know their were several programs recently (2013) started programs. Actually some schools look at it as a money maker. It brings young men to their campus that may have otherwise not matriculated there.

Right, but sports are a budget cruncher and I know some tuition-dependent schools are struggling to make the balance sheet sing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on May 27, 2016, 10:15:35 PM
This looks like a good place for this.  Banana Slugs approve increase in fees for sports.

  http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_29942412/63-percent-uc-santa-cruz-students-vote-favor



Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 29, 2016, 03:10:51 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on May 27, 2016, 10:15:35 PM
This looks like a good place for this.  Banana Slugs approve increase in fees for sports.

  http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_29942412/63-percent-uc-santa-cruz-students-vote-favor
The increase in student fees is not 180%.

It is 18 times as much, from $15/year to $270/year.  That is an 1800% increase.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on May 29, 2016, 03:41:54 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on May 29, 2016, 03:10:51 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on May 27, 2016, 10:15:35 PM
This looks like a good place for this.  Banana Slugs approve increase in fees for sports.

  http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_29942412/63-percent-uc-santa-cruz-students-vote-favor
The increase in student fees is not 180%.

It is 18 times as much, from $15/year to $270/year.  That is an 1800% increase.
Maybe the slugs are not so good at math.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Knightstalker on June 07, 2016, 02:39:36 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on May 29, 2016, 03:41:54 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on May 29, 2016, 03:10:51 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on May 27, 2016, 10:15:35 PM
This looks like a good place for this.  Banana Slugs approve increase in fees for sports.

  http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_29942412/63-percent-uc-santa-cruz-students-vote-favor
The increase in student fees is not 180%.

It is 18 times as much, from $15/year to $270/year.  That is an 1800% increase.
Maybe the slugs are not so good at math.

They are slugs.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 30, 2016, 04:13:51 PM
At least they voted to keep athletics as part of the institution. I applaud that. I was worried that vote could go the other way and athletics would have been scuttled after this upcoming academic year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 08, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
Finlandia and UMPI are announced as affiliates of the CUNYAC. The CUNYAC has 5 baseball full members. Perhaps the CUNYAC will get a Pool A bid for the 2020 season, if not sooner.


http://www.fulions.com/news/2017/3/20/finlandia-baseball-joins-the-cuny-athletic-conference.aspx?path=baseball
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 09, 2017, 12:39:19 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 08, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
Finlandia and UMPI are announced as affiliates of the CUNYAC. The CUNYAC has 5 baseball full members. Perhaps the CUNYAC will get a Pool A bid for the 2020 season, if not sooner.


http://www.fulions.com/news/2017/3/20/finlandia-baseball-joins-the-cuny-athletic-conference.aspx?path=baseball

There's an entire late-night-talk-show comedy monologue in there just waiting to get out.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 09, 2017, 07:58:48 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 09, 2017, 12:39:19 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 08, 2017, 08:28:58 PM
Finlandia and UMPI are announced as affiliates of the CUNYAC. The CUNYAC has 5 baseball full members. Perhaps the CUNYAC will get a Pool A bid for the 2020 season, if not sooner.


http://www.fulions.com/news/2017/3/20/finlandia-baseball-joins-the-cuny-athletic-conference.aspx?path=baseball

There's an entire late-night-talk-show comedy monologue in there just waiting to get out.

I guess the new ACAA isn't going to sponsor baseball.  I think I heard somewhere SUNY-Canton was trying to be an E8 affiliate for baseball.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on April 11, 2017, 10:14:41 AM
So Finlandia, at various times and in various sports, has now been a member of the NCHA (hockey) the WIAC (men's soccer), the Great South (women's soccer & women's basketball) and the CUNYAC (baseball). Any others I have missed?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on April 11, 2017, 10:50:15 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on April 11, 2017, 10:14:41 AM
So Finlandia, at various times and in various sports, has now been a member of the NCHA (hockey) the WIAC (men's soccer), the Great South (women's soccer & women's basketball) and the CUNYAC (baseball). Any others I have missed?

That arrangement did not make any sense since they have the UMAC right next door to them. How did that athletic program keep up with all the travel costs associated with that mélange of conference moves is the bigger question.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 11, 2017, 12:16:42 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on April 11, 2017, 10:50:15 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on April 11, 2017, 10:14:41 AM
So Finlandia, at various times and in various sports, has now been a member of the NCHA (hockey) the WIAC (men's soccer), the Great South (women's soccer & women's basketball) and the CUNYAC (baseball). Any others I have missed?

That arrangement did not make any sense since they have the UMAC right next door to them.

"Right next door" is a relative term. Northland is the closest UMAC neighbor to Finlandia, and it's just under three hours away. UW-Superior and St. Scholastica are the next closest, and they're a clean four-hour trip from Hancock, MI. The UMAC's Twin Cities schools are six hours away from Finlandia, and the outstate Minnesota schools are more like seven to nine hours. Sure, it's not like playing schools in New York City or down in the land of cotton, but it's not as though the Lions can just hop on the bus and travel to UMAC campuses without a second thought ... or, even more importantly, it's not as though UMAC teams can blithely take a leisurely stroll to Finlandia, either.

I'm pretty sure that the distance to Hancock, MI is a big reason (and it may even be the only reason) why the UMAC has been so hesitant to accept Finlandia's application for membership. At any rate, when we talk about what makes sense for Finlandia and what doesn't, we have to keep in mind that UMAC membership is not something that's under Finlandia's control. The Lions are the one who're coming cap in hand to make a request of the UMACers, not the other way around.

Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on April 11, 2017, 10:50:15 AMHow did that athletic program keep up with all the travel costs associated with that mélange of conference moves is the bigger question.

That is, indeed, a good question. Finlandia is not a wealthy institution -- its endowment hovers around $5m -- and, although it sponsors a modest total of fourteen varsity sports, travel costs alone must make Finlandia's athletics budget comparatively high.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on April 11, 2017, 05:16:23 PM
Finlandia is a "desert island"

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on April 12, 2017, 08:54:22 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on April 11, 2017, 05:16:23 PM
Finlandia is a "desert island"

Yeah they do hold the "Most Isolated D3 School" moniker. Especially since all the other UP schools are D2 (Northern Michigan, Michigan Tech, Lake Superior State).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 12, 2017, 12:17:57 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on April 12, 2017, 08:54:22 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on April 11, 2017, 05:16:23 PM
Finlandia is a "desert island"

Yeah they do hold the "Most Isolated D3 School" moniker. Especially since all the other UP schools are D2 (Northern Michigan, Michigan Tech, Lake Superior State).

I have Colorado College on Line 1.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on April 12, 2017, 12:37:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 12, 2017, 12:17:57 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on April 12, 2017, 08:54:22 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on April 11, 2017, 05:16:23 PM
Finlandia is a "desert island"

Yeah they do hold the "Most Isolated D3 School" moniker. Especially since all the other UP schools are D2 (Northern Michigan, Michigan Tech, Lake Superior State).

I have Colorado College on Line 1.

+K.  Sul Ross State is on Line 2.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on April 12, 2017, 01:59:55 PM
Quote from: jknezek on April 12, 2017, 12:37:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 12, 2017, 12:17:57 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on April 12, 2017, 08:54:22 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on April 11, 2017, 05:16:23 PM
Finlandia is a "desert island"

Yeah they do hold the "Most Isolated D3 School" moniker. Especially since all the other UP schools are D2 (Northern Michigan, Michigan Tech, Lake Superior State).

I have Colorado College on Line 1.

+K.  Sul Ross State is on Line 2.
UC-Santa Cruz is now awake on the west coast and on Line 3
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 12, 2017, 02:49:17 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on April 12, 2017, 01:59:55 PM
Quote from: jknezek on April 12, 2017, 12:37:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 12, 2017, 12:17:57 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on April 12, 2017, 08:54:22 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on April 11, 2017, 05:16:23 PM
Finlandia is a "desert island"

Yeah they do hold the "Most Isolated D3 School" moniker. Especially since all the other UP schools are D2 (Northern Michigan, Michigan Tech, Lake Superior State).

I have Colorado College on Line 1.

+K.  Sul Ross State is on Line 2.
UC-Santa Cruz is now awake on the west coast and on Line 3

UMPI has climbed up the telephone pole, picked up the receiver, and is now waiting for a dial tone.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 12, 2017, 03:50:16 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on April 11, 2017, 10:50:15 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on April 11, 2017, 10:14:41 AM
So Finlandia, at various times and in various sports, has now been a member of the NCHA (hockey) the WIAC (men's soccer), the Great South (women's soccer & women's basketball) and the CUNYAC (baseball). Any others I have missed?

That arrangement did not make any sense since they have the UMAC right next door to them. How did that athletic program keep up with all the travel costs associated with that mélange of conference moves is the bigger question.
What if the UMAC did not want the travel obligations to Finlandia...?  Where is the travel partner? 

On the other hand, CSS and UW-Superior work out well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 12, 2017, 05:39:17 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 12, 2017, 12:17:57 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on April 12, 2017, 08:54:22 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on April 11, 2017, 05:16:23 PM
Finlandia is a "desert island"

Yeah they do hold the "Most Isolated D3 School" moniker. Especially since all the other UP schools are D2 (Northern Michigan, Michigan Tech, Lake Superior State).

I have Colorado College on Line 1.

Johnson and Wales-Denver to the rescue!

Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 21, 2017, 01:27:44 PM
The SCAC today announced that Johnson & Wales-Denver, an NAIA school making the transition to D3 starting in 2018 Fall 2017, will join the conference as a core member in 2018.   I'm sure they won't be eligible for championships until several years down the road as is typical for transitioning schools, but this will make a big difference in travel for basketball and soccer teams which used to have to play one day at Colorado College and another in Texas.   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 12, 2017, 06:01:03 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 12, 2017, 03:50:16 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on April 11, 2017, 10:50:15 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on April 11, 2017, 10:14:41 AM
So Finlandia, at various times and in various sports, has now been a member of the NCHA (hockey) the WIAC (men's soccer), the Great South (women's soccer & women's basketball) and the CUNYAC (baseball). Any others I have missed?

That arrangement did not make any sense since they have the UMAC right next door to them. How did that athletic program keep up with all the travel costs associated with that mélange of conference moves is the bigger question.
What if the UMAC did not want the travel obligations to Finlandia...?  Where is the travel partner? 

On the other hand, CSS and UW-Superior work out well.

Northland is the travel partner for Finlandia already in UMAC basketball. The UMAC has integrated FU into its conference schedule in men's and women's basketball.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 12, 2017, 06:01:41 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 12, 2017, 05:39:17 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 12, 2017, 12:17:57 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on April 12, 2017, 08:54:22 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on April 11, 2017, 05:16:23 PM
Finlandia is a "desert island"

Yeah they do hold the "Most Isolated D3 School" moniker. Especially since all the other UP schools are D2 (Northern Michigan, Michigan Tech, Lake Superior State).

I have Colorado College on Line 1.

Johnson and Wales-Denver to the rescue!

Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 21, 2017, 01:27:44 PM
The SCAC today announced that Johnson & Wales-Denver, an NAIA school making the transition to D3 starting in 2018 Fall 2017, will join the conference as a core member in 2018.   I'm sure they won't be eligible for championships until several years down the road as is typical for transitioning schools, but this will make a big difference in travel for basketball and soccer teams which used to have to play one day at Colorado College and another in Texas.   

Yes, in like 2022, sure.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on April 13, 2017, 10:34:10 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 12, 2017, 06:01:03 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 12, 2017, 03:50:16 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on April 11, 2017, 10:50:15 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on April 11, 2017, 10:14:41 AM
So Finlandia, at various times and in various sports, has now been a member of the NCHA (hockey) the WIAC (men's soccer), the Great South (women's soccer & women's basketball) and the CUNYAC (baseball). Any others I have missed?

That arrangement did not make any sense since they have the UMAC right next door to them. How did that athletic program keep up with all the travel costs associated with that mélange of conference moves is the bigger question.
What if the UMAC did not want the travel obligations to Finlandia...?  Where is the travel partner? 

On the other hand, CSS and UW-Superior work out well.

Northland is the travel partner for Finlandia already in UMAC basketball. The UMAC has integrated FU into its conference schedule in men's and women's basketball.

I haven't figured out why if they've gone to the trouble of working them into their schedule, why the UMAC doesn't just make Finlandia at least an affiliate member for basketball. It seems like the hardest piece has already been worked out.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 13, 2017, 02:28:56 PM
That would make sense, since Finlandia is playing the full double round-robin against the entire UMAC in both men's and women's basketball. I guess that that particular league doesn't want to deal with the associate member concept.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 13, 2017, 02:36:27 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 13, 2017, 02:28:56 PM
That would make sense, since Finlandia is playing the full double round-robin against the entire UMAC in both men's and women's basketball. I guess that that particular league doesn't want to deal with the associate member concept.

They do it for football already, though.

I think the UMAC is just being deliberate about things. There are some interesting decisions/possibilities regarding football in the league. Adding Finlandia gives them the devil's number (I'm going to coin that) of 11 teams in football -- too many for a full round-robin and not enough for divisions. But if they add Finlandia and Superior adds football, that makes 12, with seven of them being core UMAC members, and maybe they don't need the five SLIAC affiliates. Or, perhaps Iowa Wesleyan could move from the SLIAC to the UMAC and give them eight core with football.

On the opposite site, though, I'd be concerned if I were the UMAC leadership that so many of my schools are so small and programs/schools might not be all that stable.

It's an interesting dynamic.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 13, 2017, 03:03:41 PM
Yeah, I had forgotten about the SLIACers that play UMAC football as associates.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 01, 2017, 12:09:07 PM
UC Santa Cruz's student body approves a significant increase to keep athletics part of their college campus experience: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/sports/20170531/uc-santa-cruz-athletics-saved-by-measure-68-passage
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on June 26, 2017, 03:34:10 PM
Some general D-III Championships news. Nothing very earth shattering...

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/championship-squad-bench-sizes-won-t-change-diii
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 27, 2017, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on June 26, 2017, 03:34:10 PM
Some general D-III Championships news. Nothing very earth shattering...

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/championship-squad-bench-sizes-won-t-change-diii

There was one little nugget which could have ramifications on a number of sports:

QuoteThe committee approved a one-year trial of a new Division III Women's Volleyball Championship format. The final eight teams remaining after regional competition will be reseeded to better balance bracket play at the finals site. The discussion of the potential change in volleyball triggered a larger dialogue about the potential for the concept to be implemented in other sports. The committee will rely on feedback after the volleyball trial year to decide whether the change should be made on a permanent basis, and to inform any decisions regarding similar recommendations that may arise for other sports. Baseball implemented a similar change for the 2017 championship, although that action was taken to move away from determining first-round matchups based on an eight-year regional rotation.

"We approved the volleyball request on a one-year trial as it is our understanding that other sport committees are discussing this concept or may formally request to reseed the finals site for their championship," Borchardt said. "Our committee wants to gather more feedback from all applicable sport committees and do an assessment of the volleyball trial year in 2017 before we take a formal position across all sports."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on June 27, 2017, 01:43:06 PM
Interesting. That would complicate the football and basketball bracket challenges.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 27, 2017, 02:07:34 PM
I highly doubt that will affect a lot of other sports. Volleyball can do that because all eight head to the same site for the final weekend. Baseball is kind of doing that already for similar reasons. I just don't see that happening in other sports that don't have that option.

The more interesting nugget in there is looking into putting a day off between semifinals and championships. I doubt that happens as well (as it adds a lot of costs), but the fact it was mentioned shows in some sports it's being pushed. What's weird is most sports have back-to-backs throughout the tournament (and men's lacrosse needs to move to that format IMO).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bombers798891 on August 17, 2017, 12:16:58 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 01, 2017, 12:09:07 PM
UC Santa Cruz's student body approves a significant increase to keep athletics part of their college campus experience: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/sports/20170531/uc-santa-cruz-athletics-saved-by-measure-68-passage

I never really know what to make of these sorts of things. 60% of the student body didn't vote, which I guess can be taken as a tacit form of approval. But only 28% of the student body actually voted yes. I would guess the yes rate among student-athletes was probably 100%, or something very close too it, so your non-athlete level of support was lower (I don't know how many SAs they have on campus.) That seems like it could still present problems down the road in terms of support.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bombers798891 on August 17, 2017, 12:34:36 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 01, 2017, 12:09:07 PM
UC Santa Cruz's student body approves a significant increase to keep athletics part of their college campus experience: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/sports/20170531/uc-santa-cruz-athletics-saved-by-measure-68-passage

This is an oversell. 60% of the student body didn't vote, which I guess can be taken as a tacit form of approval for the fee increase, but probably speaks to an indifferent at best stance on "keeping athletics part of their campus experience"—especially considering that not voting could defeat the measure.

Only 28% of the student body actually voted yes on this, and I would guess the yes rate among student-athletes was probably 100%, or something very close too it, so your non-athlete level of support was even lower (I don't know how many SAs they have on campus.) That seems like it could still present problems down the road in terms of support.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 17, 2017, 03:18:25 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on August 17, 2017, 12:34:36 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 01, 2017, 12:09:07 PM
UC Santa Cruz's student body approves a significant increase to keep athletics part of their college campus experience: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/sports/20170531/uc-santa-cruz-athletics-saved-by-measure-68-passage

This is an oversell. 60% of the student body didn't vote, which I guess can be taken as a tacit form of approval for the fee increase, but probably speaks to an indifferent at best stance on "keeping athletics part of their campus experience"—especially considering that not voting could defeat the measure.

Only 28% of the student body actually voted yes on this, and I would guess the yes rate among student-athletes was probably 100%, or something very close too it, so your non-athlete level of support was even lower (I don't know how many SAs they have on campus.) That seems like it could still present problems down the road in terms of support.
Respectfully, the athletes, for whom D3 is an integral part of the college experience, mobilized.

I would give the same slack to the reporter who wrote that headline and feature story if a proposition for increased funding for the Fine Arts Dept passed in the same manner.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 17, 2017, 07:42:05 PM
Kind of like voting in the real world. :(
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 18, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on August 17, 2017, 12:34:36 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 01, 2017, 12:09:07 PM
UC Santa Cruz's student body approves a significant increase to keep athletics part of their college campus experience: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/sports/20170531/uc-santa-cruz-athletics-saved-by-measure-68-passage

This is an oversell. 60% of the student body didn't vote, which I guess can be taken as a tacit form of approval for the fee increase, but probably speaks to an indifferent at best stance on "keeping athletics part of their campus experience"—especially considering that not voting could defeat the measure.

Only 28% of the student body actually voted yes on this, and I would guess the yes rate among student-athletes was probably 100%, or something very close too it, so your non-athlete level of support was even lower (I don't know how many SAs they have on campus.) That seems like it could still present problems down the road in terms of support.

I'm not sure how it is everywhere, but when I was in school a 10% turnout for any student vote was pretty darn impressive.  Most college kids just don't care.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bombers798891 on August 18, 2017, 04:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 17, 2017, 03:18:25 PM
Respectfully, the athletes, for whom D3 is an integral part of the college experience, mobilized.


Great! I'm glad that Santa Cruz has athletics.

But the only people who chose to "keep athletics part of their campus experience" were the people who voted yes, and that was 28% of the students. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous, especially considering the measure required a minimum percentage of people voting to pass.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 20, 2017, 01:22:46 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 18, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on August 17, 2017, 12:34:36 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 01, 2017, 12:09:07 PM
UC Santa Cruz's student body approves a significant increase to keep athletics part of their college campus experience: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/sports/20170531/uc-santa-cruz-athletics-saved-by-measure-68-passage

This is an oversell. 60% of the student body didn't vote, which I guess can be taken as a tacit form of approval for the fee increase, but probably speaks to an indifferent at best stance on "keeping athletics part of their campus experience"—especially considering that not voting could defeat the measure.

Only 28% of the student body actually voted yes on this, and I would guess the yes rate among student-athletes was probably 100%, or something very close too it, so your non-athlete level of support was even lower (I don't know how many SAs they have on campus.) That seems like it could still present problems down the road in terms of support.

I'm not sure how it is everywhere, but when I was in school a 10% turnout for any student vote was pretty darn impressive.  Most college kids just don't care.

So your student votes had 50 ballots cast?  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 20, 2017, 07:54:27 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 20, 2017, 01:22:46 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 18, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on August 17, 2017, 12:34:36 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 01, 2017, 12:09:07 PM
UC Santa Cruz's student body approves a significant increase to keep athletics part of their college campus experience: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/sports/20170531/uc-santa-cruz-athletics-saved-by-measure-68-passage

This is an oversell. 60% of the student body didn't vote, which I guess can be taken as a tacit form of approval for the fee increase, but probably speaks to an indifferent at best stance on "keeping athletics part of their campus experience"—especially considering that not voting could defeat the measure.

Only 28% of the student body actually voted yes on this, and I would guess the yes rate among student-athletes was probably 100%, or something very close too it, so your non-athlete level of support was even lower (I don't know how many SAs they have on campus.) That seems like it could still present problems down the road in terms of support.

I'm not sure how it is everywhere, but when I was in school a 10% turnout for any student vote was pretty darn impressive.  Most college kids just don't care.

So your student votes had 50 ballots cast?  ;D

You know, maybe 65 - sometimes student council elections might break triple digits.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 21, 2017, 01:36:20 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on August 18, 2017, 04:43:12 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on August 17, 2017, 03:18:25 PM
Respectfully, the athletes, for whom D3 is an integral part of the college experience, mobilized.


Great! I'm glad that Santa Cruz has athletics.

But the only people who chose to "keep athletics part of their campus experience" were the people who voted yes, and that was 28% of the students. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous, especially considering the measure required a minimum percentage of people voting to pass.

I think that you yourself pointed to the reason why there's more of an imprimatur attached to this vote in favor of UCSC athletics than you think. In fact, you pointed to it in italics. The majority of the student body didn't simply decline to vote on just any old thing, they declined to vote on a proposal to take more money out of their pockets. That speaks volumes about the depth of their indifference, because, as anybody who understands the American body politic knows, personal finances are a key -- perhaps even the key -- motivator for most people. That goes for college students as well as full-fledged adults, although the fact that some college students aren't financially self-supporting mitigates that somewhat.

Of the students who did care enough to vote on Measure 68, the tally was 4:1 in favor of the new fee to support UCSC athletics. That's pretty darned decisive in terms of the people who were motivated by the issue.

You think that the low turnout "could still present problems down the road in terms of support," but I see it as a ringing endorsement of UCSC sports. It may seem counterintuitive to speak of the power of apathy, but this was a pretty impressive demonstration of it. If UCSC students couldn't be bothered to resist a proposal to hoover more bucks out of their wallets, it seems like cut-and-dried proof that the Banana Slugs are going to be with us in the D3 ranks for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bombers798891 on August 21, 2017, 02:49:15 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 21, 2017, 01:36:20 PM
If UCSC students couldn't be bothered to resist a proposal to hoover more bucks out of their wallets, it seems like cut-and-dried proof that the Banana Slugs are going to be with us in the D3 ranks for the foreseeable future.

But that's what you keep misconstruing. They didn't have to vote no to resist the proposal. The proposal had two ways it could be defeated:

1. If 76% of the student body choose not to vote
2. If the proposal got 25% of the vote, and more than 1/3 of the votes were no.

Because there were two completely different ways to defeat the measure, there were two ways, in the moment, students could decide to oppose it. They could not vote, or they could vote no. In that scenario, a non-vote cannot be considered a positive thing, no matter how much you want it to be, or how much you smite my karma. Yes, we know now that if a student chose to oppose it by staying home, they made the wrong choice, as it were. But if I were trying to get that measure passed, I would not look at the non-voters as people on my side.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 21, 2017, 06:45:54 PM
I didn't misconstrue it at all, Bombers. I extrapolated a viable theory that explained the results of Measure 68, based upon my knowledge of how American college students, and Americans in general, think and act in voting situations. Taking the concept of apathy to its logical conclusion, it's reasonable to deduce that the non-voting students not only refused to vote, they refused to even make themselves aware of the process as well. The operative principle at work here among UCSC students is "interest causes action", with not voting being an inaction (and therefore a sign of disinterest) rather than a passive action.

Thus, the quorum rule that you mentioned -- the need to have 25% of the student body participate in order to make the vote binding -- can't be construed as a possible negative response to Measure 68, a sort of "pocket veto", if you will. That's not really how Americans are used to approaching a ballot situation. Heck, the vast majority of Americans couldn't even tell you what the word "quorum" means, nor do they have any interest whatsoever in parliamentary procedure. When they approve of something, they vote for it -- and the activist-minded among them campaign for it as well. When they disapprove of something, they vote against it -- and, again, people opposed who tend to be activists will campaign against it. Those who don't care one way or the other, well, they just don't vote at all. A passive negative response expressed via the quorum rule, in other words, would've been alien to the UCSC students' understanding of how a vote works, so that's not how they would've expressed their opposition to Measure 68. They would've expressed it by voting against it.

Also, I did not smite you. I kind of resent the accusation, actually, since you had neither cause nor evidence to make it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 22, 2017, 06:02:25 PM


You'd also have to prove that the student body was largely aware of the quorum requirement - something that is exceedingly unlikely.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bombers798891 on August 23, 2017, 10:41:14 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 21, 2017, 06:45:54 PM

Also, I did not smite you. I kind of resent the accusation, actually, since you had neither cause nor evidence to make it.

That was a general statement toward whoever was smiting me, not an accusation to you specifically, though I can see it obviously would come across as a personal attack, and for which I apologize profusely.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 21, 2017, 06:45:54 PM

When they approve of something, they vote for it


Sigh. That was my initial point, Greg. Only 28% of the student body approved of it and voted yes. And, in my opinion, 28% of the student body approving of something is not the same thing as Dave's statement of, "UC Santa's Cruz's student body approves." Yes, from a journalism standpoint, it's easier and simpler to write it as such. But this topic isn't about journalism, it's about the future of D-III sports.

And I don't know if 28% of the student body approving of something necessarily speaks to a good level of long-term support. As you said, the athletes mobilized and got them to the ballot boxes, which is great. But even with this fee increase, supporting athletics (just like supporting anything on a college campus) isn't about going to a ballot box one time. It's about going to games, spreading the word, giving to programs, all that great stuff that we all probably do here. It's the long game. If, after a strong mobilization, only 28% of students take the one-time action to cast their vote for yes, how many of them can be counted on to be long-term supporters? That's the pertinent question you have to find the answer to if you're Santa Cruz.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 24, 2017, 12:38:33 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on August 23, 2017, 10:41:14 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 21, 2017, 06:45:54 PM

When they approve of something, they vote for it


Sigh. That was my initial point, Greg. Only 28% of the student body approved of it and voted yes.

Actually, the fact that 80% of the voters approved of it is more pertinent, because that's the fact that's binding.

But as to that low voter turnout, I don't think that it's such a damning thing at all. In American culture, the mass of almost any collective that's grouped together for reasons other than the topic at hand will likely be apathetic to said topic. Voter turnout for civic elections is a prime example of this. As Ryan alluded earlier, college students don't tend to turn out for student government elections, either; my small private school was similar to his in terms of having miniscule turnout for student government elections, and you'd think that a small private school like his or mine, where a greater percentage of students know the candidates personally and students tend to be more residentially-based (and therefore more active in general with regard to extracurriculars), would have big turnouts for these votes.

This is why American colleges and universities periodically get successful joke-candidate write-in campaigns. In 1979 Minnesota Twins reserve outfielder Bombo Rivera received hundreds of write-in votes in the University of Minnesota student council presidential election; some apocryphal sources say that he actually won the election. My junior year at North Park, my friends and I staged a write-in campaign for a crimson-painted papier-mâché llama head called the Red Llama (named for a misread joke from the opening credits to Monty Python and the Holy Grail) for Student Council president. It came in third, losing to the second (serious) candidate by only one vote. The Central Student Government at the University of Michigan actually sought to suppress joke candidates last year, because they were so perennially successful. (https://www.michigandaily.com/section/news/csg-may-eliminate-comedic-write-ins-during-election-season)

In other words, I'm at a loss as to why you're including the word "only" in your statement, given the cultural context. Actually, 28% was probably a healthy turnout by UCSC student-body standards, and a testimony to the strong mobilization efforts of the student-athlete population.

I doubt that anything short of a vote on whether or not to double tuition, or to close the school or not, would rouse UCSC students enough to come out in droves.

Quote from: Bombers798891 on August 23, 2017, 10:41:14 AMAnd, in my opinion, 28% of the student body approving of something is not the same thing as Dave's statement of, "UC Santa's Cruz's student body approves." Yes, from a journalism standpoint, it's easier and simpler to write it as such. But this topic isn't about journalism, it's about the future of D-III sports.

He's not right from a journalism standpoint; he's right from a legal standpoint, "legal" in this sense referring to the constitution and bylaws of UCSC student government and to whichever governing body (likely the UC Board of Regents) authorized the UCSC student body to assess the Intercollegiate Athletics and Athletics Activities Access Fee. The two requirements of a "yes" vote were to meet a 25% quorum and to win a majority of the ballots cast. The "yes" position met both requirements, which means that in a legally binding sense D-Mac is right that the UC-Santa Cruz student body approved Measure 68.

Quote from: Bombers798891 on August 23, 2017, 10:41:14 AMAnd I don't know if 28% of the student body approving of something necessarily speaks to a good level of long-term support. As you said, the athletes mobilized and got them to the ballot boxes, which is great. But even with this fee increase, supporting athletics (just like supporting anything on a college campus) isn't about going to a ballot box one time. It's about going to games, spreading the word, giving to programs, all that great stuff that we all probably do here. It's the long game. If, after a strong mobilization, only 28% of students take the one-time action to cast their vote for yes, how many of them can be counted on to be long-term supporters? That's the pertinent question you have to find the answer to if you're Santa Cruz.

This is really a separate matter, because your "pertinent question" could be applied to any D3 school, regardless of whether or not the student body has ever voted on a proposition that, in essence, could make or break the school's intercollegiate athletics. My impression -- and since D-Mac and Pat (and perhaps Ryan) have had exposure to administrators, coaches, and students from a wider variety of D3 schools than I have, I'd like to read their impressions as well -- is that, broadly speaking, intercollegiate athletics are not a big priority among students at large on most D3 campuses. And keep in mind that the schools with which I am most familiar are in a conference (the CCIW) that generally does very well in D3 conference attendance rankings. There are likely D3 schools here and there that do drum up a lot of interest in school sports among their students, and even in less-sports-intensive schools there may be a program or two that gets great student turnouts at games. But, by and large, my read on D3 sports with regard to students is that they are mostly an activity followed by friends and family and by fellow student-athletes from other sports. In other words, I see that 28% turnout for the Measure 68 vote at UCSC as being a pretty typical response by D3 standards in terms of student-at-large interest in school sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bombers798891 on August 24, 2017, 03:10:29 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 24, 2017, 12:38:33 PM

Actually, the fact that 80% of the voters approved of it is more pertinent, because that's the fact that's binding.

So one post after saying "If they approve of something, they vote for it" you're adding the addendum "But they also approve of it if they don't vote for it"

Okay, sure.

We're not going to see eye to eye on this, so I'm just going to drop it. Good talk
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 24, 2017, 06:34:55 PM
No, I'm saying that if they approve of something, they vote for it. Non-voters are essentially neutral by way of their apathy.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on August 24, 2017, 07:12:57 PM
It passed. That should be the end of it. It may not be, but it is for now.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 28, 2017, 09:18:48 AM
UC Santa Cruz just cannot get the vote out like they can in Chicago.   ;)

http://chicagocitywire.com/stories/511195461-election-board-lists-more-general-election-votes-than-voters-in-chicago
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 28, 2017, 03:02:16 PM
Voting fraud in Chicago? What a shock!

Next, you'll be telling me that the Chicago River flows backwards, mass-transit trains run up above the ground, and White Sox fans hate the Cubs. :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NCF on August 28, 2017, 03:09:03 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 28, 2017, 03:02:16 PM
Voting fraud in Chicago? What a shock!

Next, you'll be telling me that the Chicago River flows backwards, mass-transit trains run up above the ground, and White Sox fans hate the Cubs. :D

And vice versa!! 8-) ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 28, 2017, 03:50:37 PM
The overwhelming majority of Cubs fans are largely indifferent to the White Sox, outside of when the two teams play each other.

The team that Cubs fans hate is the St. Louis Cardinals, which only stands to reason, since the Cubs and Cards have been league rivals for over 125 years and divisional rivals for almost half a century.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on August 28, 2017, 07:22:01 PM
In Cub fans mind, the team on the South Side is a minor league squad.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NCF on August 28, 2017, 08:41:05 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 28, 2017, 03:50:37 PM
The overwhelming majority of Cubs fans are largely indifferent to the White Sox, outside of when the two teams play each other.

The team that Cubs fans hate is the St. Louis Cardinals, which only stands to reason, since the Cubs and Cards have been league rivals for over 125 years and divisional rivals for almost half a century.

We must know different Cub fans, because the Cub fans I know hate the White Sox. ;D 8-)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 28, 2017, 09:31:37 PM
Your friends are a distinct minority among Cubs fans, NCF. Most of us really don't care about the other team in town one way or another. Those among that small minority that do are usually people who have acquaintances, family members, or co-workers who are ardent White Sox fans that (like quite a few White Sox fans) spend more time jaw-jacking Cubs fans about their team, their ballpark, their fan base, their excessive money, their perceived lack of baseball knowledge, and any number of other bones of contention that they want to pick with fans of the North Siders, than they do in actually talking about their White Sox. In essence, the hatred of the White Sox by those Cubs fans is a reactive one; you keep getting in my ear every day about my team and my support for them like that, eventually I'm going to respond in kind. But, again, that's not that big of a slice of Cubs fandom. Now, smed's take might seem a tad uncharitable, but it's really not that far from the truth in terms of the amount of thought that most Cubs fans put into the White Sox. (He's actually not that far from the truth in describing the competence of the current edition of the White Sox, either, but that's another story.)

Mark Grace, who was in the eye of the hurricane during Crosstown Classics for several years, has a spot-on take on the difference between the two sets of Chicago baseball fans. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/the-difference-between-fans-of-white-sox-cubs/vi-BBBsNB3)

As I said, Cubs fans for the most part are very clear on the identity of their team's archrival -- it's the St. Louis Cardinals. On the other hand, for all of the decades that the White Sox have shared their division with the Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins, and Kansas City Royals, one can't help but get the suspicion that for the White Sox fanbase none of those teams even comes close to capturing their ire the way that the Cubs do.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on August 29, 2017, 08:51:52 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 28, 2017, 09:31:37 PM
As I said, Cubs fans for the most part are very clear on the identity of their team's archrival -- it's the St. Louis Cardinals. On the other hand, for all of the decades that the White Sox have shared their division with the Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins, and Kansas City Royals, one can't help but get the suspicion that for the White Sox fanbase none of those teams even comes close to capturing their ire the way that the Cubs do.

This is because the White Sox don't have nearly as long and of history of battling them for the top of the standings table. The Tigers, Indians, and White Sox have been in the American League since Teddy Roosevelt was in office but from 1969-1993 the Sox were in the West and the Tigers and Indians were in the East. The Twins and Royals have always been in the same division as the White Sox when divisions existed but the Twins didn't begin play until 1961 and the Royals started in 1969. The Cubs and Cardinals have been in the same standings table since the 1800s
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 29, 2017, 01:09:29 PM
Just a thought about the UC Santa Cruz vote... if the focus is on 28% of the actual student body voted for the proposal and that is disappointing, consider this: with that thinking, only 25% of Americans voted for Trump (slightly higher for Clinton) to be president.

Yeah... when you factor in ALL individuals who are eligible to vote, you get a different number than when you only consider those who voted.

Here is how I look at it... yes, the article says the student-body voted to approve it even though a lot of the student-body didn't vote at all. In my opinion, that means those who didn't vote were okay with going along with those who did vote and the decision made as a result. If they didn't feel like voting, they then have to be fine with the result (i.e. it drives me nuts those who protest any Presidential vote and then it's revealed they didn't even vote). So while only 28% of students actually voted for the topic, it was the student-body on a larger scale that approved it because those who didn't vote chose to allow the decision to be made without them. They chose to have others represent them. They chose for a smaller portion to represent the entire student-body.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 29, 2017, 01:13:42 PM
There is some truth to what you've said, hickory. But the bigger explanation is that White Sox fans just have never worked up the same fervor for hating the Twins, Indians, Royals, and Tigers that they have for the Cubs. There's a lot of sociology involved with it -- the perceived class differences to which Mark Grace alluded between the supposedly white-collar Cubs fanbase and the supposedly blue-collar White Sox fanbase (a broad-brush distinction that is certainly overblown), and the inferiority complex of South Siders as a result of being from the grittier, oft-neglected side of town rather than the more attractive and higher-profile North Side. The ballparks and game-day atmosphere (old-timey baseball palace in a hip neighborhood with a million places to go before or after the game, versus a rather generic modern stadium surrounded by vast parking lots, with little or nothing in the way of a fan-friendly neighborhood beyond them) play into it as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 29, 2017, 07:46:49 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 29, 2017, 01:13:42 PM
There is some truth to what you've said, hickory. But the bigger explanation is that White Sox fans just have never worked up the same fervor for hating the Twins, Indians, Royals, and Tigers that they have for the Cubs. There's a lot of sociology involved with it -- the perceived class differences to which Mark Grace alluded between the supposedly white-collar Cubs fanbase and the supposedly blue-collar White Sox fanbase (a broad-brush distinction that is certainly overblown), and the inferiority complex of South Siders as a result of being from the grittier, oft-neglected side of town rather than the more attractive and higher-profile North Side. The ballparks and game-day atmosphere (old-timey baseball palace in a hip neighborhood with a million places to go before or after the game, versus a rather generic modern stadium surrounded by vast parking lots, with little or nothing in the way of a fan-friendly neighborhood beyond them) play into it as well.

Not sure why this conversation continues... the White Sucks Sox aren't worth discussing. ROFL
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on August 29, 2017, 11:29:18 PM
Dave, the White Sox are serving a vital function - they are keeping my Tigers out of last place! ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 30, 2017, 12:26:36 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on August 29, 2017, 11:29:18 PM
Dave, the White Sox are serving a vital function - they are keeping my Tigers out of last place! ;D

https://media.giphy.com/media/6xWQt3NF9VqBW/giphy.gif (https://media.giphy.com/media/6xWQt3NF9VqBW/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: AndOne on August 31, 2017, 04:54:47 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 29, 2017, 01:13:42 PM
There is some truth to what you've said, hickory. But the bigger explanation is that White Sox fans just have never worked up the same fervor for hating the Twins, Indians, Royals, and Tigers that they have for the Cubs. There's a lot of sociology involved with it -- the perceived class differences to which Mark Grace alluded between the supposedly white-collar Cubs fanbase and the supposedly blue-collar White Sox fanbase (a broad-brush distinction that is certainly overblown), and the inferiority complex of South Siders as a result of being from the grittier, oft-neglected side of town rather than the more attractive and higher-profile North Side. The ballparks and game-day atmosphere (old-timey baseball palace in a hip neighborhood with a million places to go before or after the game, versus a rather generic modern stadium surrounded by vast parking lots, with little or nothing in the way of a fan-friendly neighborhood beyond them) play into it as well.

As a suburban guy my observation over the years is that if you live in the burbs, you USUALLY like one team or the other, and don't really pay much attention or give much thought to the team that isn't your favorite of the two. My Sox fan son is a perfect example.
On the other hand, many city residents I know like one team, and consider the other one of the lowest life forms on the planet. When the other team wins even a single regular season game they feel like they've been stabbed. A college buddy grew up 3 blocks east of Wrigley. He viewed every Sox win just short of someone insulting his mother.
The other thing I've observed long term is that a higher percentage of Sox fans actually know the game better than Cubs "fans" do, and go to Sox games because they both enjoy the game itself more and are true, loyal Sox fans. They would have to be to inflict such misery upon themselves especially with the current hapless state of the South Siders.
While true Cubs fans are as fervent as they come in any sport, a very large percentage of Cubbie fans attend games purely because Wrigley Field is the place to be. It's a happening. The top party spot on the North Side. The fact that a baseball game is going on is a sidelight or bonus to the fact that they are attendees at a love fest. To be at Wrigley is to be cool. Sox fans get drunk at the game. Many Cub fans arrive, already in that state from pre-game mass consumption at one of the many establishments within a few blocks of The Friendly Confines. Then, they add to their level of intoxication throughout. If you watch a game, every medium deep fly ball off a Cub bat elicits a loud chorus of Oohs and Ahs from the crowd as if there is no chance the ball will land anywhere short of Lake Michigan. They're too drunk and/or know too little about the game to realize that the ball has as much chance to reach the seats as the Sox do of winning the World Series.
The Cubs, of course, play a much more entertaining brand of baseball. But a higher percentage of Cub fans either don't understand what is going into that day's W, or are to far into the wind to notice or, aside from the final score, to care.
And yes. The Sox have no rivalry with any other team that comes anywhere close to that which exists between the Cubs and Cardinals.
Apologies to all for the long winded rant.  ::)  :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 31, 2017, 10:28:41 PM
White Sox fans love to point to that whole "a higher percentage of Sox fans know the game of baseball better than Cubs fans do" and "Cubs fans are casual fans that don't understand the game of baseball" thing, but I don't think that they've really thought out the reason why. The cause is really a matter of simple mathematics.

The Cubs fan base dwarfs that of the White Sox. In major-league baseball parlance there are "big-market teams" and "small-market teams", terms which bear a lot of importance because market size typically (although not always) determines team revenue, and, thus, the ability to compete on the field by doling out big contracts to the best players. The White Sox are always described as a small-market team; the Cubs are always described as a big-market team. That would appear to make no sense, because the two teams share the same geographic area. But the truth is that the entirety of the White Sox fan base can be enclosed within about a fifty-mile radius to the southeast, south, southwest, and west of Guaranteed Rate Field. The Cubs? Their fan base extends deep into downstate Illinois (where it eventually mixes with the Cardinals fan base), over into Iowa, and up to the Wisconsin border and even beyond (southern Wisconsin has a Cubs/Brewers mix, just like central Illinois has a Cubs/Cardinals mix).

Beyond that, the Cubs have a national following, thanks to WGN and the heyday of cable television. You can find Cubs fans in every nook and cranny of this country, and even beyond -- it's no shock to hear people speaking in Dutch, Swedish, Tagalog, Japanese, Hindi, and Greek when you're sitting in the stands at the Friendly Confines. The Cubs are in the same boat as the Yankees and the Red Sox and the Dodgers in that they have fans all around the world, and visiting Wrigley is for them the baseball equivalent of a Muslim making the hajj to Mecca. I mean, for crying out loud, when the Cubs celebrated their World Series victory last fall, 5,000,000 people came out to see the parade and the Grant Park rally. Five freakin' million people. Wrap your mind around that, if you can. That was the seventh-largest assembly of human beings in the history of the planet, and the largest gathering ever in the Western Hemisphere. (http://wgnradio.com/2016/11/05/cubs-worlds-series-celebration-ranks-as-7th-largest-gathering-in-human-history/) So we're not talking big market versus small market. We're talking brontosaurus market versus flea market.

Now, given that massive following, you're going to get many, many more casual fans of the Cubs than you'll find casual types in White Sox fandom. You'll also find many, many more knowledgeable baseball fans among Cubs fandom in terms of sheer numbers than you will among the White Sox faithful, no matter how vociferously White Sox fans deny it -- but their percentage of the overall fan base is lower. It's simple demographics. If you have ten times as many fans, that means that you'll have ten times as many casual fans and many times as many diehard fans. Don't believe me? Do an online search of baseball blogs. That's usually a good barometer of devoted, well-informed fans of the game. And there are a lot more Cubs-oriented blogs (and Cubs-oriented blog readers) than blogs devoted to the team on 35th Street, and their page-view stats are higher.

So, yeah, when a routine flyball is hit at Wrigley Field, you get a lot of oohs and aahs. But that's not because Wrigley Field is the city's largest outdoor beer garden. I mean, it is the city's largest outdoor beer garden, but the myth that most of the people who are there are drunk or are seeking to get drunk is just that -- a myth. The stands are actually filled with families, aside from the bleachers (which is definitely a heavy-drinking area, and has been since at least the 1960s). The reason why people don't judge flyballs well at Wrigley is because a very large chunk of the crowd on any given day consists of pilgrims from out of town, people who rarely or otherwise never have access to a ticket (especially in the current situation in which the franchise is putting one of the best teams in all of baseball on the field).

The flip side to all that is that the White Sox tend to draw fans who are more committed because, in large part, they have more access to their team. The White Sox draw dismally, even for a small-market team, and they draw dismally even in years when they don't stink as badly as they do this season. There's therefore a higher percentage of true believers at Guaranteed Rate Field on any given night, simply because it's not the kind of environment that brings out casual fans in droves (and there's far fewer casual White Sox fans to draw, anyway). Heck, White Sox fans even take a perverse pride in staying away from the ballpark when the team is bad, as sort of their way of punishing management for not fielding a better team (little heeding the fact that this actually guarantees further poor performance by keeping team revenue low).

And, honestly, Mark, the percentage of Cubs fans in the city who consider the White Sox "one of the lowest life forms on the planet" is not very large at all. In fact, it's the knowledge that their hatred of the other team is not returned tit-for-tat that enrages White Sox fans even further where the Cubs are concerned.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on August 31, 2017, 11:38:47 PM
Greg, I couldn't help noticing that your last sentence sounds almost exactly the same as the scenario you have sometimes given for NPU and Wheaton! :o  (Which would make you a Cubs fan who acts like a Sox fan for D3! ;))

While I have no clear-cut evidence to back it up, my impression of Peoria fandom when I was growing up there (50s and early 60s -- still the same?) of those who cared about baseball at all was roughly 40-40 Cubs/Cardinals, 10% White Sox, and 10% everyone else combined.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 01, 2017, 03:25:08 PM
I never attended a game at Wrigley, as a kid or as an adult (one), where I wasn't there to take in the game, learn from it, etc. While many are there for the atmosphere ("Hey look, it must be Pope Day here at Wrigley" or "Hey, it must be bikini day here at Wrigley" - in my best Harry Carey voice) there wasn't a visit to a game I didn't see people following the game by scoring their own game as well. Love, love, love Wrigley so very much.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on September 01, 2017, 03:33:09 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 01, 2017, 03:25:08 PM
I never attended a game at Wrigley, as a kid or as an adult (one), where I wasn't there to take in the game, learn from it, etc. While many are there for the atmosphere ("Hey look, it must be Pop Day here at Wrigley" or "Hey, it must be bikini day here at Wrigley" - in my best Harry Carey voice) there wasn't a visit to a game I didn't see people following the game by scoring their own game as well. Love, love, love Wrigley so very much.

This.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on August 31, 2017, 11:38:47 PM
Greg, I couldn't help noticing that your last sentence sounds almost exactly the same as the scenario you have sometimes given for NPU and Wheaton! :o  (Which would make you a Cubs fan who acts like a Sox fan for D3! ;))

Very true, Chuck, and in fact I've pointed out that parallel before on d3boards.com.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on August 31, 2017, 11:38:47 PM
While I have no clear-cut evidence to back it up, my impression of Peoria fandom when I was growing up there (50s and early 60s -- still the same?) of those who cared about baseball at all was roughly 40-40 Cubs/Cardinals, 10% White Sox, and 10% everyone else combined.

it probably varies according to which major-league team includes the Peoria Chiefs in its farm system. From 1985 through 1994 the Chiefs were a farm club of the Cubs; from 1995 through 2004 the Chiefs were affiliated with the Cardinals; from 2005 through 2012 the Chiefs were back with the Cubs system; and, since the Cubs then transferred their affiliation to Midwest League rival Kane County that year, the Chiefs have been back with the Cardinals since 2013.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on September 01, 2017, 06:20:16 PM
You guys need to move this discussion to the Baseball boards.  Maybe more people would chime in. :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: iwumichigander on September 07, 2017, 09:26:58 PM
Santa Cruz - I do not recall anyone pointing out a key fact from the article - this is a 25 year decision !  This binds not only the current student body but future students.
What an abdication for responsibility by the trustees, administration and alumni.  IMHO, it is bad precedent for Santa Cruz and possibly DIII.

Will other schools adult leadership abdicate their fiscal responsibility for student votes for athletics

I am waiting for the potential/possible (and hypothetical for this discussion) lawsuit(s).  My room is sub-standard compared other other rooms in different facilities. I did not get to vote when fees were increased like the athletic and recreational fees.  I filing a class action lawsuit because I want a vote on room and board fees and/or fee increases.  I also want to vote on tuition increases, majors with less than 100 people and professors/administration performance reviews.

Of course, the students can vote with their feet.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: iwumichigander on September 07, 2017, 09:36:31 PM
I will be brief Gray Fox - as a kid who grew up downstate, 75 miles NE of St. Loins and with various family connections to the Cardinals - I had no idea there were so may Cubs fans down state until I went to IWU in Bloomington, Il.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on September 07, 2017, 09:51:23 PM
Quote from: iwumichigander on September 07, 2017, 09:36:31 PM
I will be brief Gray Fox - as a kid who grew up downstate, 75 miles NE of St. Loins and with various family connections to the Cardinals - I had no idea there were so may Cubs fans down state until I went to IWU in Bloomington, Il.
They are everywhere.  Just try going to a Dodger game when the Cubs are in town.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 05, 2017, 12:24:32 AM
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Sep2017DIIIChamps_September_Report_20171002.pdf

I have a question about Item 12 on  page 5.

"...The Championships Committee's primary goal is for the
division to consider criteria that remove any incentive for conferences to form solely for the
purposes of obtaining automatic qualification. The Championships Committee agreed it would
be helpful to study the percent of competition committed to conference opponents among
schools in conferences with automatic qualification to better understand current scheduling
practices."

I need help with this.  Which conference can one recall formed solely for the AQ, that did not already have some commonality in Mission and Vision to begin with?

Open ended question presented for discussion ... (I have my own thoughts.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2017, 12:48:08 AM
When I read this, this was the first conference that came to mind:
http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2017/02/new-d3-conference-approved
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on October 05, 2017, 10:09:51 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2017, 12:48:08 AM
When I read this, this was the first conference that came to mind:
http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2017/02/new-d3-conference-approved
Where would Mills find a conference without this?
  The SCIAC would be the best  option, but that is problematic unless they could partner with UCSC in some way.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on October 05, 2017, 10:44:53 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on October 05, 2017, 10:09:51 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2017, 12:48:08 AM
When I read this, this was the first conference that came to mind:
http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2017/02/new-d3-conference-approved
Where would Mills find a conference without this?
  The SCIAC would be the best  option, but that is problematic unless they could partner with UCSC in some way.

Well, yeah, but that's the point isn't it? I mean, does Mills need a conference? That's what Pool B and C is for. A conference helps fill your regular season schedule, but if you aren't using it that way, and only having a post season, what point is it serving other than getting you a Pool A?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on October 05, 2017, 12:02:11 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 05, 2017, 10:44:53 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on October 05, 2017, 10:09:51 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2017, 12:48:08 AM
When I read this, this was the first conference that came to mind:
http://www.d3sports.com/notables/2017/02/new-d3-conference-approved
Where would Mills find a conference without this?
  The SCIAC would be the best  option, but that is problematic unless they could partner with UCSC in some way.

Well, yeah, but that's the point isn't it? I mean, does Mills need a conference? That's what Pool B and C is for. A conference helps fill your regular season schedule, but if you aren't using it that way, and only having a post season, what point is it serving other than getting you a Pool A?
A few of those were in the old Great south Athletic Conference its last year or two of existence.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on October 05, 2017, 01:34:30 PM
I looked at the Mills schedules for volleyball and soccer.
They have very few games with other D3 schools.  I think that there is a tournament at season end that decides a representative to the playoffs. I don't know if that would apply to all the schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 01:45:47 PM
Yeah - this is clearly something they are looking at per the old women's-only GSAC who didn't play any games against each other and in it's last season didn't even have teams show up to the conference tournament. And they are looking at the ACAA who is also not playing games in conference.

I think many in the Division are rightly so looking at conferences like the old GSAC women's and now current ACAA and asking this: why do they get an automatic bid if the only thing they do is play a couple games at the end of the season and nothing the other 25 games allotted (remember, conference tournament games don't count towards the 25). There are a number of institutions who suck it up and play conference schedules even if it kills them in travel (Colorado College comes to mind).

I understand the idea of the ACAA trying to gain access to the tournament in a manner that fits best, but is that the best opportunity? It is basically stealing a bid from everyone else especially if there are not enough teams in Pool B to guarantee a bid there (which I am not sure there are, but I haven't checked the numbers of late).

I personally had a problem with the GSAC women in those last two years because basically a bid was being removed for a very good team for one who didn't have a .500 record, didn't play conference games, and basically just played whomever they could find for the fun of it until the last few games of the season meant something.

I get that it is hard for those who don't have a conference, but there is Pool B and there are certain things that have to be done to get an AQ. Throwing a conference together just in name and in post-season with no competition during the regular season (basically allowing them to also not care about who they play in the regular season) seems to fly in the face of AQs in general.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 05, 2017, 02:29:33 PM
My first thought about the minimum requirements for a conference would be to play single round robin among the members of a division or conference (out of deference to the NESCAC ;) ). This would apply to team sports such as volleyball, soccer, hoops and softball/baseball, etc.

For Finlandia and U Maine Presque Isle in baseball, the CUNYAC could arrange the travel expenses for the teams. Those games might occur in Florida (as the UAA has done) or with home and away in alternate years. Or the New York schools could make one out of town trip, either to Michigan or to Maine, in alternating years.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on October 05, 2017, 07:05:05 PM
No, make it at least a double round robin with 1/2 of the league! HAHAHAHAHAH! :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on October 05, 2017, 07:24:59 PM
I don't think it has to he a round robin, just a certain percentage of the schedule played in conference games. Say 60% or the nearest number rounded up, and it has to be played against at least 50 % of conference members. So if you have a 20 game regular season and a 7 team conference, you need to play 12 conference games against 4 different conference members. Finally, you must play every conference member at least once every 3 years. This allows a true conference schedule but some flexibility for geographically disparate conferences. It also allows for really large conferences as well. If you have a 20 member sport you would need to play 12 conference games to meet the 20 game schedule requirement. Assuming 2 divisions of 10, you would have 3 out of division games but to meet the every 3 year rule you would need to add one more.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 08:43:33 PM
Honestly, I think it has to be a bit more rigid. I like the ideas, jknezek, but that is easy to beat. School comes for a year or two and then leaves, they never fullfill the idea. Conference can promise they will do it, but they are granted the AQ before they prove it (AQ in two years of existence). I feel they need to prove their worth as it where before that AQ is done. I like the one-round of playing every opponent in the conference each year. That allows each institution to have had to travel to the others at least once before the AQ is given up. That way institutions have to consider the costs of joining the conference - like most have to consider before joining a conference. It also keeps conferences from forming for convenience without any challenge that everyone else has to deal with (transportation and such).

And per your larger conference idea, I don't think that would end up being realistic. I just can't see 20 schools coming together and forming a conference like the ACAA in Division III. In Division I, of course, but not in Division III. Yes, large conferences exists, but they don't necessarily start out as 20 schools. They grow into bigger units - i.e. the ODAC and USA South.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 05, 2017, 09:22:04 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 01:45:47 PMThere are a number of institutions who suck it up and play conference schedules even if it kills them in travel (Colorado College comes to mind).

Colorado College has an endowment of almost seven hundred million dollars. I don't think that that school is being killed by its athletics travel budget.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 09:36:34 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 05, 2017, 09:22:04 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 01:45:47 PMThere are a number of institutions who suck it up and play conference schedules even if it kills them in travel (Colorado College comes to mind).

Colorado College has an endowment of almost seven hundred million dollars. I don't think that that school is being killed by its athletics travel budget.

To be honest, that is about average. There are some on the east coast who have billions in endowments and we never talk about them in basketball (or when we do, its because they are having serious problems). Endowments can sometimes deceive.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 05, 2017, 10:17:02 PM
Mean average, you mean. I would argue that the mean average tells you almost nothing about the typical endowment of a D3 school, because some schools (esp. those in the UAA and the NESCAC) are so insanely wealthy that they skew the mean beyond all usefulness. If you go by the mode, which is a much more accurate average in terms of representing the typical D3 endowments, the average is pretty modest -- and it's well below Colorado College's $683m.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 05, 2017, 10:25:59 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 05, 2017, 10:17:02 PM
Mean average, you mean. I would argue that the mean average tells you almost nothing about the typical endowment of a D3 school, because some schools (esp. those in the UAA and the NESCAC) are so insanely wealthy that they skew the mean beyond all usefulness. If you go by the mode, which is a much more accurate average in terms of representing the typical D3 endowments, the average is pretty modest -- and it's well below Colorado College's $683m.
Are you sure you don't want the median rather than the mode?
Sorry... math OCD
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 05, 2017, 11:44:33 PM
Yeah, you're right. I meant "median" and typed "mode". Sorry.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on October 05, 2017, 11:48:06 PM
I bet most of those endowment dollars are restricted, though. It's not free money to use as they see fit. I know everyone would love to get unrestricted endowments, but unrestricted scholarship endowments seem to be about the norm.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 06, 2017, 01:27:41 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 05, 2017, 11:44:33 PM
Yeah, you're right. I meant "median" and typed "mode". Sorry.
Sager, you better be glad that GrizzliesGrad caught that error in statistics before Ypsi did!    ;)    ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on October 06, 2017, 09:15:45 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 08:43:33 PM
Honestly, I think it has to be a bit more rigid. I like the ideas, jknezek, but that is easy to beat. School comes for a year or two and then leaves, they never fullfill the idea. Conference can promise they will do it, but they are granted the AQ before they prove it (AQ in two years of existence). I feel they need to prove their worth as it where before that AQ is done. I like the one-round of playing every opponent in the conference each year. That allows each institution to have had to travel to the others at least once before the AQ is given up. That way institutions have to consider the costs of joining the conference - like most have to consider before joining a conference. It also keeps conferences from forming for convenience without any challenge that everyone else has to deal with (transportation and such).
How many free agent type schools do you think there are? I don't think you'd see a lot of join for a year then leave. That makes for even worse scheduling issues. If you mandate a significant part of the schedule has to happen in conference, then the ADs are probably going to be ok with the conference because it saves a scheduling hassle. If they can't do it because of travel costs, they aren't going to spend the time setting up an independent schedule 2 of every 3 years and then shutting out those partners for one year. It's not worth it. All you are trying to do is prevent gaming the system while also easing scheduling problems and travel costs for teams without a conference.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 08:43:33 PM
And per your larger conference idea, I don't think that would end up being realistic. I just can't see 20 schools coming together and forming a conference like the ACAA in Division III. In Division I, of course, but not in Division III. Yes, large conferences exists, but they don't necessarily start out as 20 schools. They grow into bigger units - i.e. the ODAC and USA South.

I wasn't thinking along these lines because I agree, it's not realistic. But whatever rules you set up to define an appropriate conference has to be applicable to all conferences, not just the ones that smell funny. So the point I was making was that the restrictions I proposed work for the ACAA problem but also work for something like the ODAC or USASAC. In other words, they don't negatively affect existing large conferences while helping solve the problem they are looking to solve.  It's why defining a conference as a conference with a complete round robin, let alone a home and home schedule, simply won't work.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 06, 2017, 10:06:11 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 06, 2017, 01:27:41 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 05, 2017, 11:44:33 PM
Yeah, you're right. I meant "median" and typed "mode". Sorry.
Sager, you better be glad that GrizzliesGrad caught that error in statistics before Ypsi did!    ;)    ;D

I'd already caught it, but occasionally choose not to say anything! ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 06, 2017, 11:00:41 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 05, 2017, 11:48:06 PM
I bet most of those endowment dollars are restricted, though. It's not free money to use as they see fit. I know everyone would love to get unrestricted endowments, but unrestricted scholarship endowments seem to be about the norm.

I realize that, but the bigger the endowment, the greater the likelihood of unrestricted money in it. And $683m is a big endowment.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 06, 2017, 11:04:37 AM
Quote from: jknezek on October 06, 2017, 09:15:45 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 08:43:33 PM
Honestly, I think it has to be a bit more rigid. I like the ideas, jknezek, but that is easy to beat. School comes for a year or two and then leaves, they never fullfill the idea. Conference can promise they will do it, but they are granted the AQ before they prove it (AQ in two years of existence). I feel they need to prove their worth as it where before that AQ is done. I like the one-round of playing every opponent in the conference each year. That allows each institution to have had to travel to the others at least once before the AQ is given up. That way institutions have to consider the costs of joining the conference - like most have to consider before joining a conference. It also keeps conferences from forming for convenience without any challenge that everyone else has to deal with (transportation and such).
How many free agent type schools do you think there are? I don't think you'd see a lot of join for a year then leave. That makes for even worse scheduling issues. If you mandate a significant part of the schedule has to happen in conference, then the ADs are probably going to be ok with the conference because it saves a scheduling hassle. If they can't do it because of travel costs, they aren't going to spend the time setting up an independent schedule 2 of every 3 years and then shutting out those partners for one year. It's not worth it. All you are trying to do is prevent gaming the system while also easing scheduling problems and travel costs for teams without a conference.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 08:43:33 PM
And per your larger conference idea, I don't think that would end up being realistic. I just can't see 20 schools coming together and forming a conference like the ACAA in Division III. In Division I, of course, but not in Division III. Yes, large conferences exists, but they don't necessarily start out as 20 schools. They grow into bigger units - i.e. the ODAC and USA South.

I wasn't thinking along these lines because I agree, it's not realistic. But whatever rules you set up to define an appropriate conference has to be applicable to all conferences, not just the ones that smell funny. So the point I was making was that the restrictions I proposed work for the ACAA problem but also work for something like the ODAC or USASAC. In other words, they don't negatively affect existing large conferences while helping solve the problem they are looking to solve.  It's why defining a conference as a conference with a complete round robin, let alone a home and home schedule, simply won't work.

Plus, you'd think that the NESCAC would actively resist any attempt by the division membership to define conference status in terms of round robins. After all, if you can define conferences by whether or not they employ single round-robins, then what's to stop you from defining them by whether or not they employ double round-robins?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on October 06, 2017, 11:07:19 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 06, 2017, 11:04:37 AM
Quote from: jknezek on October 06, 2017, 09:15:45 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 08:43:33 PM
Honestly, I think it has to be a bit more rigid. I like the ideas, jknezek, but that is easy to beat. School comes for a year or two and then leaves, they never fullfill the idea. Conference can promise they will do it, but they are granted the AQ before they prove it (AQ in two years of existence). I feel they need to prove their worth as it where before that AQ is done. I like the one-round of playing every opponent in the conference each year. That allows each institution to have had to travel to the others at least once before the AQ is given up. That way institutions have to consider the costs of joining the conference - like most have to consider before joining a conference. It also keeps conferences from forming for convenience without any challenge that everyone else has to deal with (transportation and such).
How many free agent type schools do you think there are? I don't think you'd see a lot of join for a year then leave. That makes for even worse scheduling issues. If you mandate a significant part of the schedule has to happen in conference, then the ADs are probably going to be ok with the conference because it saves a scheduling hassle. If they can't do it because of travel costs, they aren't going to spend the time setting up an independent schedule 2 of every 3 years and then shutting out those partners for one year. It's not worth it. All you are trying to do is prevent gaming the system while also easing scheduling problems and travel costs for teams without a conference.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 05, 2017, 08:43:33 PM
And per your larger conference idea, I don't think that would end up being realistic. I just can't see 20 schools coming together and forming a conference like the ACAA in Division III. In Division I, of course, but not in Division III. Yes, large conferences exists, but they don't necessarily start out as 20 schools. They grow into bigger units - i.e. the ODAC and USA South.

I wasn't thinking along these lines because I agree, it's not realistic. But whatever rules you set up to define an appropriate conference has to be applicable to all conferences, not just the ones that smell funny. So the point I was making was that the restrictions I proposed work for the ACAA problem but also work for something like the ODAC or USASAC. In other words, they don't negatively affect existing large conferences while helping solve the problem they are looking to solve.  It's why defining a conference as a conference with a complete round robin, let alone a home and home schedule, simply won't work.

Plus, you'd think that the NESCAC would actively resist any attempt by the division membership to define conference status in terms of round robins. After all, if you can define conferences by whether or not they employ single round-robins, then what's to stop you from defining them by whether or not they employ double round-robins?

Well the ODAC can't do a double round robin in basketball and probably more than a few of the women's sports. There aren't that many games in a season. Same with the USASAC. And no football conference could have a double round robin, precious few lax ones either, so that is simply a no-go as a conference definer.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 06, 2017, 11:58:30 AM
I was sure that once upon a time, a conference had to play at least 60% of its games as conference games in order to qualify for an AQ. I thought I saw that on a qualification form back in the 1990s. But I have not seen it documented in the internet era.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on October 06, 2017, 11:58:57 AM
"The Championships Committee's primary goal is for the division to consider criteria that remove any incentive for conferences to form solely for the purposes of obtaining automatic qualification. "

I disagree with this entire premise. There are a number of single-sport conferences in sports that aren't sponsored evenly across the country that are formed very much for this reason - championship access. I think that's perfectly fine and no one has ever seemed to object to that. Are we to say that it's OK to do so in one sport but not as a full member?

Next, it's a slippery slope to try to define a conference based on how it conducts its regular season. For instance, there are a small number of AQ sports (golf and women's rowing spring to mind) where it's actually quite common to not have head-to-head dual competition during the season.  Would those sports be exempted? If so, on what grounds? Norms of the sport? The NCAA has granted conferences quite a bit of flexibility in determining their AQs, which is what ultimately impacts the NCAA Tournament - it would seem odd if they were now dictating regular-season conference competition.

Finally, in most Division III sports, Pool B is generally weak ... and the bids awarded in Pool B end up often going to sub-par teams on the basis of criteria that tends to be a little less indicative of quality when you're not applying it to top-end teams. I'd MUCH rather encourage those teams to be in AQ conferences - even those without full regular-season competition so that their path into the national tournament is clearer - win. your. league. Short of folding Pool B and C together in every sport, I'd prefer to see schools try to form their own paths to AQs, even through very shaky conference alignments.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on October 06, 2017, 12:00:46 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 06, 2017, 11:58:30 AM
I was sure that once upon a time, a conference had to play at least 60% of its games as conference games in order to qualify for an AQ. I thought I saw that on a qualification form back in the 1990s. But I have not seen it documented in the internet era.

Was that only in basketball or football? Because, you might play a double round robin in baseball and only be hovering around 50%. And a 9-game soccer, lacrosse, or field hockey conference schedule is likely not getting you to 60% either. 60% is a very high number outside of basketball (assuming a double round robin) or football.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 06, 2017, 12:03:28 PM
Quote from: sunny on October 06, 2017, 11:58:57 AM
"The Championships Committee's primary goal is for the division to consider criteria that remove any incentive for conferences to form solely for the purposes of obtaining automatic qualification. "

I disagree with this entire premise. There are a number of single-sport conferences in sports that aren't sponsored evenly across the country that are formed very much for this reason - championship access. I think that's perfectly fine and no one has ever seemed to object to that. Are we to say that it's OK to do so in one sport but not as a full member?

But those single-sport conferences also provide a set schedule of regular season games for their members -- at least the ones I have observed have. Perhaps in some sports (meet sports such as golf, XC, etc.) that's not a need. When a conference provides nothing but a postseason tournament and a ticket to the dance, I feel it's fair to question it and make sure we're being good stewards of a championship system that is already overloaded and often unable to expand.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 06, 2017, 12:08:08 PM
With the passage of time, sunny, I don't recall. Sorry.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on October 06, 2017, 12:14:34 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 06, 2017, 12:03:28 PM
Quote from: sunny on October 06, 2017, 11:58:57 AM
"The Championships Committee's primary goal is for the division to consider criteria that remove any incentive for conferences to form solely for the purposes of obtaining automatic qualification. "

I disagree with this entire premise. There are a number of single-sport conferences in sports that aren't sponsored evenly across the country that are formed very much for this reason - championship access. I think that's perfectly fine and no one has ever seemed to object to that. Are we to say that it's OK to do so in one sport but not as a full member?

But those single-sport conferences also provide a set schedule of regular season games for their members -- at least the ones I have observed have. Perhaps in some sports (meet sports such as golf, XC, etc.) that's not a need. When a conference provides nothing but a postseason tournament and a ticket to the dance, I feel it's fair to question it and make sure we're being good stewards of a championship system that is already overloaded and often unable to expand.

Anything can be questioned, but I'm not sure what this is "solving." I find it hard to reconcile the notion of having to legitimize conferences while still reserving bids for Pool B. If Pools B and C were folded together then, yes, I could understand this level of concern. But, they aren't. And we've all heard fans and coaches across all sports complain about Pool B (I'm not sure there is a strong Pool B sport anymore - there were years and years ago). Part of that complaining was "well, I can accept the weak AQ winners getting in because they won their league." So, some schools have decided to chase a weak AQ instead of a weak Pool B bid.

Bear in mind, some of these far-flung schools would have to spend quite a sum of money to put together a schedule conducive to a Pool B bid in some sports. They aren't ducking in-season conference competition simply because they want to - it's financial. I'd imagine the majority of these schools would much rather be in a nearby conference but that conference either a) doesn't exist or b) doesn't want them. What they are doing is essentially a last resort - and trying to regulate this is akin to demanding that they spend a ton of money on travel or continue to wallow in Pool B - and, often times, be put in a position where a Pool B bid-favorable schedule would be difficult to construct financially.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on October 06, 2017, 12:24:33 PM
I also want to clarify that there are two conversations here. The one that's been mostly focused on conferences playing a regular season schedule is the one that most of these posts are about. I have given my reasons why I would not be in favor of that, but I understand there's an argument to be had. But remember this discussion is originally born out of this premise:

"The Championships Committee's primary goal is for the division to consider criteria that remove any incentive for conferences to form solely for the purposes of obtaining automatic qualification."

And that I wholeheartedly disagree with. Again, single-sport conferences generally exist wholly, or in large part, for championship access and the above premise would seem to take issue with that notion. Secondly, I don't think the NCAA should even broach the subject of "motivation" behind conference formation or membership. Since this isn't necessarily ONLY about regular-season competition, accepting the NCAA's premise opens up one obvious can of worms - the possibility of making single-sport conferences more difficult to form - and potentially opens up all kinds of other unforeseen issues.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 06, 2017, 02:11:29 PM
Per my comment about "average" in terms of endowment, it was a general use of the term. From what I see in endowments when I have done my research, Colorado College's numbers come in around where most seem to fall or in the middle of the extremes. I am not doing the hard math to find that number, but in my observations their endowment is about average - thus in the middle or there abouts to most endowments I have seen. Thus my point is I don't think just because they have $670+ million dollars in endowment is the reason they can travel. I again point out that I have seen schools with far more money in endowments who can barely keep an athletics department up and running. I get all the reasons for those endowments not necessarily affecting athletics which strengthens my point that the size of endowments don't necessarily equate to athletic spending or success. Heck, I have seen some endowments FAR lower than I expected for an institution whose athletics teams are very successful.

Quote from: jknezek on October 06, 2017, 09:15:45 AM
How many free agent type schools do you think there are? I don't think you'd see a lot of join for a year then leave. That makes for even worse scheduling issues. If you mandate a significant part of the schedule has to happen in conference, then the ADs are probably going to be ok with the conference because it saves a scheduling hassle. If they can't do it because of travel costs, they aren't going to spend the time setting up an independent schedule 2 of every 3 years and then shutting out those partners for one year. It's not worth it. All you are trying to do is prevent gaming the system while also easing scheduling problems and travel costs for teams without a conference.

The ACAA is basically a free-agent conference. It has been formed with exactly the expected result that its members will move on when they find more suitable conference situations for themselves. That could be after a year or multiple years. Each institution doesn't care about the schedule until they are into a more stable/local conference. Remember, the ACAA is NOT scheduling conference games. There is no impact on schedule what-so-ever whether a team comes or goes. They just want easier access to NCAA tournaments without having to do anything more than play a few games at the end of the season to earn it. And they aren't hiding that fact.

If you look at the list of ACAA schools, they nearly all have been in conversations with other conferences in the last few years looking to try and find a home. They nearly all continue to talk to conferences about a new home.  The ACAA does not have a penalty for leaving, last I was informed, to ease the ability to leave when they need to for another conference (almost immediately if necessary).

Quote
... whatever rules you set up to define an appropriate conference has to be applicable to all conferences, not just the ones that smell funny. So the point I was making was that the restrictions I proposed work for the ACAA problem but also work for something like the ODAC or USASAC. In other words, they don't negatively affect existing large conferences while helping solve the problem they are looking to solve.  It's why defining a conference as a conference with a complete round robin, let alone a home and home schedule, simply won't work.

I am not sure what you think won't work. What I am saying is that conferences need to mandate at least one trip through the conference opponents. Maybe you are indicating that larger conferences like the ODAC and USA South can't accomplish that due to size. I understand your point, but I don't agree. They are all already playing every conference opponent once even if they aren't playing everyone twice.

Basically, I am proposing that for a conference to maintain an AQ, they have to play everyone at least once. Maybe the exception to the rule (and there are always exceptions) is sport-based. We all know that playing everyone once in sports like football in a conference that is big enough is nearly impossible (look at the MAC next season). In that case, put in a percentage like 70% or more or something. It is something other conferences are already doing mostly out of necessity. I just feel it is something that can be easily added to the AQ mandate. I would even go further to say that the schedule does not get a grace period like membership has. Controlling membership numbers can be far harder than scheduling (especially with low numbers of conference opponents). So while conferences get a two-year period to fix membership numbers, they don't have any grace period to make sure they are playing the appropriate number of games in conference.

Sunny - I do not honestly think single-sport conferences are the main target of the Championships Committees focus. There are darn good reasons for single-sport conferences and they all seem come together for the obvious reasons: no conference affiliations, their home conference doesn't sponsor the sport, need of more scheduled games, etc. I can't think of a single-sport conference (team wise, can't speak for individual sports) who don't come together for any other reason. The ACAA and the old GSAC women's conference are, and where, multi-sport conferences. They are multi-sport conferences with no conference schedules. I can't think of a single-sport conference that doesn't feature a schedule against conference opponents.

I will also say, the committee's interest to make sure conferences are in it for the right reasons and don't try and cut corners to an AQ is valid. I don't feel they are saying any conference only in it for an AQ should be eliminated or not formed. However, I do feel they are saying that those conferences need to do more than just come together to have the right number of teams for an AQ and nothing else. That's why I think the old GSAC women's and the current ACAA are the target and the reason for the decision not single-sport conferences.

Maybe the wording from the committee isn't quite right. We all know that ALL conferences formed do so with a purpose of obtaining an AQ. However, the criteria is rather simple: have the right number of institutions (besides some red tape stuff). I feel the Championships Committee is considering what can be done with the criteria to make sure the conferences are doing more than just having a post-season tournament to reward an AQ (or rewarding one without any teams playing each other, period, which is certainly possible). I feel that is certainly fair in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on October 06, 2017, 05:37:17 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 06, 2017, 02:11:29 PM
Per my comment about "average" in terms of endowment, it was a general use of the term. From what I see in endowments when I have done my research, Colorado College's numbers come in around where most seem to fall or in the middle of the extremes. I am not doing the hard math to find that number, but in my observations their endowment is about average - thus in the middle or there abouts to most endowments I have seen.

Again, though, there is more than one type of average. There's mean average, median average, and mode average. Mean average is what you're using: Add up all of the endowments of D3 schools and divide by the number of D3 schools. And that's misleading, because the endowments of the 23 schools in D3 that have endowments in the billions completely distort the mean. Mode average -- the number that appears most commonly among all of the D3 endowment numbers -- is obviously irrelevant. What I'm arguing is that the median average -- the endowment that is right in the middle of all 440-odd D3 endowment numbers -- is the pertinent one. And that median average is far, far less than $683m.

F'rinstance, of the 54 schools in D3's Central Region, there are a grand total of three -- Chicago, Wash U, and Grinnell -- that have endowments larger than Colorado College's. The next largest, that of Wheaton, is only 57% the size of Colorado College's. And of the 49 schools in the West Region, only Caltech, Pomona (as a stand-alone), Carleton, and Macalester have endowments bigger than Colorado College's. And if we use Colorado College's own region, the South, of the 60 other members of the region besides Colorado College, only five -- Emory, Washington & Lee, Trinity (TX), Berea, and Berry -- have larger endowments than Colorado College's.

As you can see by the latest NACUBO list, most D3 schools have endowments smaller than $150m, and a large percentage of them have endowments that are only in eight figures to the left of the decimal point.

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/EndowmentFiles/2016-Endowment-Market-Values.pdf

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 06, 2017, 02:11:29 PMThus my point is I don't think just because they have $670+ million dollars in endowment is the reason they can travel. I again point out that I have seen schools with far more money in endowments who can barely keep an athletics department up and running. I get all the reasons for those endowments not necessarily affecting athletics which strengthens my point that the size of endowments don't necessarily equate to athletic spending or success. Heck, I have seen some endowments FAR lower than I expected for an institution whose athletics teams are very successful.

I'm not saying that the proportion of unrestricted endowment money to total endowment money is the same at every school. But I'm very willing to bet that that's generally the case. Whether schools choose to devote as much money to their annual athletics budget as they are capable of devoting is another matter entirely, and that's as much driven by administrative philosophy and school culture as it is endowment, if not more. What I'm saying is that the likelihood of a large amount of unrestricted endowment money being available to Colorado College is far better than the likelihood that most other D3 schools would have it.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on October 06, 2017, 06:52:20 PM
Don't want to belabor endowment figures too much, but d-mac, you've apparently been hanging out too much with UAA types if you think Colorado College's endowment is even remotely close to typical for D3! 8-)

The data Greg linked to is for colleges in the US and Canada, only perhaps 200-250 of which are D3 schools.  The 815 schools in their data set had a mean of $640 million, but a median of only $120 million - like most income and wealth datasets there is a huge (excuse me, YUGE! ;D) positive skew, with a few extremely high values pulling the mean WAY up.  For this dataset, Harvard alone pulls the mean up by $43 million over what it would be if Harvard was at the median!  For the D3 schools, Chicago, WashU, and Emory combine for about $20 billion (probably about equaling the lowest 125-150 D3 schools combined) - I don't have the numbers to prove it, but I suspect the D3 endowment world is about the same skew as for the schools as a whole.  Colorado College's endowment may be roughly the MEAN D3 endowment; it is probably at least 5 times the MEDIAN endowment.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on October 07, 2017, 01:44:19 PM
A lot of D-3 schools are reliant on tuition or church support more than endowment.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on October 07, 2017, 11:32:31 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 06, 2017, 06:52:20 PM
Don't want to belabor endowment figures too much, but d-mac, you've apparently been hanging out too much with UAA types if you think Colorado College's endowment is even remotely close to typical for D3! 8-)

The data Greg linked to is for colleges in the US and Canada, only perhaps 200-250 of which are D3 schools.  The 815 schools in their data set had a mean of $640 million, but a median of only $120 million - like most income and wealth datasets there is a huge (excuse me, YUGE! ;D) positive skew, with a few extremely high values pulling the mean WAY up.  For this dataset, Harvard alone pulls the mean up by $43 million over what it would be if Harvard was at the median!  For the D3 schools, Chicago, WashU, and Emory combine for about $20 billion (probably about equaling the lowest 125-150 D3 schools combined) - I don't have the numbers to prove it, but I suspect the D3 endowment world is about the same skew as for the schools as a whole.  Colorado College's endowment may be roughly the MEAN D3 endowment; it is probably at least 5 times the MEDIAN endowment.

No... I did an endowment breakdown of three conference in the Mid-Atlantic Region last year for a project I was tasked... Colorado College's numbers call right in the middle. Not one of those schools was a UAA school (one was a former UAA school, yes). And the biggest number on the list was not Johns Hopkins (if memory serves; I think I still have the pad around here somewhere). Believe it or not, there were a lot of schools I expected higher endowments and their numbers were far lower.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 08, 2017, 08:53:46 AM
Greg's list only had three of the ASC 13 core members.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 08, 2017, 06:25:22 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 08, 2017, 08:53:46 AM
Greg's list only had three of the ASC 13 core members.

True; schools can opt out (or have to opt in).  According to other sources

Belhaven $6.0 **
Concordia $13.3
ETBU $56.2 **
HSU   $165.2 **
HPU   $52.2 **
Letourneau $20.0 *
LC $34.6**
UMHB $75.0 **
McM   $72.6 *
Ozarks $92.6 *
Sul Ross $17.1
UT Dallas $436.2**
UT Tyler $76.1**

* - NACUBO study
** - US News & World Report
otherwise "Google <xxx> endowment"

No $700M endowments there.  I have looked at D3 endowments quite a bit over the years and concur with those who say that number is way high for the typical school.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 09, 2017, 11:38:34 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 08, 2017, 06:25:22 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 08, 2017, 08:53:46 AM
Greg's list only had three of the ASC 13 core members.

True; schools can opt out (or have to opt in).  According to other sources

Belhaven $6.0 **
Concordia $13.3
ETBU $56.2 **
HSU   $165.2 **
HPU   $52.2 **
Letourneau $20.0 *
LC $34.6**
UMHB $75.0 **
McM   $72.6 *
Ozarks $92.6 *
Sul Ross $17.1
UT Dallas $436.2**
UT Tyler $76.1**

* - NACUBO study
** - US News & World Report
otherwise "Google <xxx> endowment"

No $700M endowments there.  I have looked at D3 endowments quite a bit over the years and concur with those who say that number is way high for the typical school.
I think that  UTD has some old Texas Instruments money from the patents in the1970's and 1980's.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on October 20, 2017, 08:09:48 AM
Bob Jones University intends to apply for Division III membership.

http://www.bjubruins.com/news/2017/10/17/general-bruins-athletics-to-pursue-ncaa-d3-membership.aspx
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on October 20, 2017, 09:01:43 AM
Another one for the USA South?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on October 20, 2017, 09:25:45 AM
Quote from: Hawks88 on October 20, 2017, 09:01:43 AM
Another one for the USA South?

Can't imagine who else would take them, but the USA South doesn't need another member. On the other hand, might be another step toward the USASAC adding Track though.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Scots13 on October 20, 2017, 10:45:22 AM
Quote from: jknezek on October 20, 2017, 09:25:45 AM
Quote from: Hawks88 on October 20, 2017, 09:01:43 AM
Another one for the USA South?

Can't imagine who else would take them, but the USA South doesn't need another member. On the other hand, might be another step toward the USASAC adding Track though.

I wouldn't be shocked if the USAC sent an invitation to Bob Jones. Ferrum is leaving for the ODAC, so might as well keep the membership numbers at 19  ::).

With Ferrum leaving, the conference break down is as follows for 2018:
Agnes Scott, Averett, Berea, Brevard, Covenant, Greensboro, Huntingdon, LaGrange, Mary Baldwin, Maryville, Meredith, Methodist, NCWC, Pfeiffer, Piedmont, Salem, Wesleyan, William Peace.

GA: 5
NC: 8
VA: 2
TN: 1
KY: 1
AL: 1

Gone are the days of the USAC predominately spanning Virginia and NC. There has been a push over the recent years to pick up the old GSAC schools (Maryville included). If Bob Jones is invited and accepts membership into the USAC, the conference would span 7 states. The only saving grace for BJU is they're located in Greenville, SC on I-85.

8 of the 18 schools currently sponsor football. I wonder what the chances are for those 8 schools to split off and form their own conference. Realizing some of the 8 sponsor some sports that others do not (like lacrosse), I think it would be much easier for those schools with both football and lacrosse to be associate members of the lacrosse/track/whatever sponsoring conference.

If that does happen (new conference, that is) I would like to know what the name would be. USAC was once the Dixie. Can't do that anymore. Southeastern Conference, Big South, Southland, and Southern Conference are DI. South Atlantic,  Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference are DII.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 20, 2017, 11:21:33 AM
Quote from: Scots13 on October 20, 2017, 10:45:22 AM
If that does happen (new conference, that is) I would like to know what the name would be. USAC was once the Dixie. Can't do that anymore. Southeastern Conference, Big South, Southland, and Southern Conference are DI. South Atlantic,  Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference are DII.
Those 8 football schools are only in 5 states so just stick all the states in the name. We have the WIAC, MIAC, IIAC, CCIW, OAC, SCIAC, MIAA, NJAC, MASCAC, etc so VANGT Conference or Virginia, Alabama, North carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee Conference ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Scots13 on October 20, 2017, 11:32:09 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 20, 2017, 11:21:33 AM
Quote from: Scots13 on October 20, 2017, 10:45:22 AM
If that does happen (new conference, that is) I would like to know what the name would be. USAC was once the Dixie. Can't do that anymore. Southeastern Conference, Big South, Southland, and Southern Conference are DI. South Atlantic,  Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference are DII.
Those 8 football schools are only in 5 states so just stick all the states in the name. We have the WIAC, MIAC, IIAC, CCIW, OAC, SCIAC, MIAA, NJAC, MASCAC, etc so VANGT Conference or Virginia, Alabama, North carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee Conference ;D

+k for the comic relief!

That's shedding some light on the issue we have in D3 in the South. Texas by far has the most D3 schools in any one state, but Texas is so big is doesn't really help!
In terms of football sponsoring schools, Alabama has 2, GA has 2, TN has 3 (Sewanee and Maryville are less than 3 hours away, but Rhodes in Memphis is a much longer drive), KY has 2, MS has 2, AR has 1, SC has 0. Virginia and NC are really the only 2 southern states with a decent number of D3 football teams.
NAIA is still "dominate" in regards to number of member schools playing football in the South, especially in TN and KY.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on October 20, 2017, 11:49:19 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on October 20, 2017, 08:09:48 AM
Bob Jones University intends to apply for Division III membership.

http://www.bjubruins.com/news/2017/10/17/general-bruins-athletics-to-pursue-ncaa-d3-membership.aspx
If they make the playoffs, is it proper to say they are going to the dance?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 20, 2017, 11:54:26 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on October 20, 2017, 11:49:19 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on October 20, 2017, 08:09:48 AM
Bob Jones University intends to apply for Division III membership.

http://www.bjubruins.com/news/2017/10/17/general-bruins-athletics-to-pursue-ncaa-d3-membership.aspx
If they make the playoffs, is it proper to say they are going to the dance?
+1!
:D  ROTFL (Is rolling on the floor laughing the same as dancing?)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Scots13 on October 20, 2017, 01:13:12 PM
I just put two and two together. Bob Jones U is the school mentioned in The Ladykillers (Tom Hanks movie). ::)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: roocru on October 23, 2017, 01:10:01 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on October 20, 2017, 11:49:19 AM
Quote from: Just Bill on October 20, 2017, 08:09:48 AM
Bob Jones University intends to apply for Division III membership.

http://www.bjubruins.com/news/2017/10/17/general-bruins-athletics-to-pursue-ncaa-d3-membership.aspx
If they make the playoffs, is it proper to say they are going to the dance?

+k for the Pun Master!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 02, 2017, 07:53:24 PM
On a totally different subject, today's tax reform proposal apparently would come at cost to some colleges, with wider implications for all

Excerpted from http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/358542-winners-and-losers-in-the-gop-tax-bill

Universities
The tax bill would add a new tax on universities with big endowments.

Colleges and universities that have endowments equivalent to $100,000 per student or more will have to pay a new 1.4 percent tax on endowment income.

Universities build their endowments from donations that are tax deductible. The plan would also put limitations on certain donations, such as those attached to sporting events.

[...]

The bill would also eliminate the interest deduction on student loans, which affects about a third of Americans with student debt.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on November 02, 2017, 08:18:02 PM
Thank you  Ron
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 06, 2017, 10:45:04 AM
And, the latest from the AA itself on D3:

http://www.ncaa.org/champion/goals-met-goals-set?sf147775061=1

Goals Met, Goals Set
DIII makes strides on key initiatives despite recent budget strife, eyes new programs


After staring down potential budget shortfalls in recent years, Division III governance committees made difficult decisions to help bring the division's budget back in order. Their careful cuts to championships spending were temporary remedies, and some cost-saving measures — such as championships per diem cuts — gradually are being eased back amid a rosier financial picture.

How rosy? This spring, the Division III Presidents Council felt comfortable offering a credit to schools to offset the roughly $500,000 cumulative annual membership dues increase that was slated to go into effect this August.


more info at the link above on recent and upcoming initiatives.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 06, 2017, 11:01:53 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 06, 2017, 10:45:04 AM
And, the latest from the AA itself on D3:

http://www.ncaa.org/champion/goals-met-goals-set?sf147775061=1

Goals Met, Goals Set
DIII makes strides on key initiatives despite recent budget strife, eyes new programs


After staring down potential budget shortfalls in recent years, Division III governance committees made difficult decisions to help bring the division's budget back in order. Their careful cuts to championships spending were temporary remedies, and some cost-saving measures — such as championships per diem cuts — gradually are being eased back amid a rosier financial picture.

How rosy? This spring, the Division III Presidents Council felt comfortable offering a credit to schools to offset the roughly $500,000 cumulative annual membership dues increase that was slated to go into effect this August.


more info at the link above on recent and upcoming initiatives.

This may be considered crazy, but I wish the NCAA just held onto the money reaped in by the increase to membership dues and either added a bit more to championships or held onto it in a rainy-day fund. The dues increase was overwhelmingly approved and considering how low the dues were to begin with (and arguably low now), I don't know if sending the money back makes any sense. Again, hold on to it for an extra flight when warranted in a championship tournament or put it in a rainy-day fund to help at any point in the future when the budget will get tighter. This division is so large and continually growing that it has to consider another round of living with a tight budget (who knows how long the D1 contracts stay so lucrative).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 06, 2017, 01:02:54 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 06, 2017, 11:01:53 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 06, 2017, 10:45:04 AM
And, the latest from the AA itself on D3:

http://www.ncaa.org/champion/goals-met-goals-set?sf147775061=1

Goals Met, Goals Set
DIII makes strides on key initiatives despite recent budget strife, eyes new programs


After staring down potential budget shortfalls in recent years, Division III governance committees made difficult decisions to help bring the division's budget back in order. Their careful cuts to championships spending were temporary remedies, and some cost-saving measures — such as championships per diem cuts — gradually are being eased back amid a rosier financial picture.

How rosy? This spring, the Division III Presidents Council felt comfortable offering a credit to schools to offset the roughly $500,000 cumulative annual membership dues increase that was slated to go into effect this August.


more info at the link above on recent and upcoming initiatives.

This may be considered crazy, but I wish the NCAA just held onto the money reaped in by the increase to membership dues and either added a bit more to championships or held onto it in a rainy-day fund. The dues increase was overwhelmingly approved and considering how low the dues were to begin with (and arguably low now), I don't know if sending the money back makes any sense. Again, hold on to it for an extra flight when warranted in a championship tournament or put it in a rainy-day fund to help at any point in the future when the budget will get tighter. This division is so large and continually growing that it has to consider another round of living with a tight budget (who knows how long the D1 contracts stay so lucrative).
+1!

When there is speculation in the sports journalism punditry about ESPN dropping the NFL, the NCAA needs some forward-thinking about how to replace shortfalls in revenue in the D-1 sports.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-espn-could-abandon-nfl-football-guest-column-1052792
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 06, 2017, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 06, 2017, 01:02:54 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 06, 2017, 11:01:53 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 06, 2017, 10:45:04 AM
And, the latest from the AA itself on D3:

http://www.ncaa.org/champion/goals-met-goals-set?sf147775061=1

Goals Met, Goals Set
DIII makes strides on key initiatives despite recent budget strife, eyes new programs


After staring down potential budget shortfalls in recent years, Division III governance committees made difficult decisions to help bring the division's budget back in order. Their careful cuts to championships spending were temporary remedies, and some cost-saving measures — such as championships per diem cuts — gradually are being eased back amid a rosier financial picture.

How rosy? This spring, the Division III Presidents Council felt comfortable offering a credit to schools to offset the roughly $500,000 cumulative annual membership dues increase that was slated to go into effect this August.


more info at the link above on recent and upcoming initiatives.

This may be considered crazy, but I wish the NCAA just held onto the money reaped in by the increase to membership dues and either added a bit more to championships or held onto it in a rainy-day fund. The dues increase was overwhelmingly approved and considering how low the dues were to begin with (and arguably low now), I don't know if sending the money back makes any sense. Again, hold on to it for an extra flight when warranted in a championship tournament or put it in a rainy-day fund to help at any point in the future when the budget will get tighter. This division is so large and continually growing that it has to consider another round of living with a tight budget (who knows how long the D1 contracts stay so lucrative).
+1!

When there is speculation in the sports journalism punditry about ESPN dropping the NFL, the NCAA needs some forward-thinking about how to replace shortfalls in revenue in the D-1 sports.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-espn-could-abandon-nfl-football-guest-column-1052792

I always remind people of this: remember the NCAA gets absolutely nothing from the college football contracts of the FBS. They only get the contracts of FCS and any sport that is national televised (basketball, baseball, softball). That said, who knows where the future is with all these things. I personally think the demand will still be there, but to what degree is very much up in the air.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 06, 2017, 06:25:44 PM
Regardless of whether Ralph's comment was meant to be specific to CFB putting money in the Indy coffers, it's definitely valid as a leading indicator that we should all be worried about with regards to television contracts and sports funding.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 02, 2018, 10:36:16 AM
Interesting article on declining college enrollments likely starting in around ten years, and the scenarios discussed could have a definite impact on the multitude of D3 schools located in areas where the number of college attendees is projected to decline the most.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2018/01/27/higher-education-is-headed-for-a-supply-and-demand-crisis/

Quote"...the country is heading into a lengthy period of significant differences in growth by region. The South and to a certain extent the West will account for nearly all the growth in the high school population over the next decade-plus. At the same time, the Northeast and Midwest — home to the highest density of colleges in the United States with a history of student migration between states —show a continued and steady decline."

If you accept the basic premises presented here (percentage of high school graduates will decline, students will be less willing to travel long distances to attend colleges, financial aid will become even more crucial among them), elite schools will continue to do well, near-elite schools will probably be ok, other schools could struggle due to declining numbers.     
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2018, 09:58:16 PM
Mississippi University for Women is resuming intercollegiate athletics with 5 men's and 5 women's sports (but no Winter Sports for either men or women).  They were D-2 (women only) when they discontinued intercollegiate athletics 15 years ago.  The Mission/Vision Statement say that they are D-3.

http://www.owlsathletics.com/information/mission_vision

The baseball schedule is a mixture of D-3, NAIA and others.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on February 11, 2018, 09:55:38 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2018, 09:58:16 PM
Mississippi University for Women is resuming intercollegiate athletics with 5 men's and 5 women's sports (but no Winter Sports for either men or women).  They were D-2 (women only) when they discontinued intercollegiate athletics 15 years ago.  The Mission/Vision Statement say that they are D-3.

http://www.owlsathletics.com/information/mission_vision

The baseball schedule is a mixture of D-3, NAIA and others.

Is it a requirement from the NCAA you have at least one sport in each season? I seem to remember it is but I can't find where I saw it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2018, 12:15:13 PM
I believe that it is 5 sports of which there must be one sport in each season. If they do not want hoops, they can have swimming and diving which would work well as an independent.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on February 11, 2018, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2018, 09:58:16 PM
Mississippi University for Women is resuming intercollegiate athletics with 5 men's and 5 women's sports (but no Winter Sports for either men or women).  They were D-2 (women only) when they discontinued intercollegiate athletics 15 years ago.  The Mission/Vision Statement say that they are D-3.

http://www.owlsathletics.com/information/mission_vision

The baseball schedule is a mixture of D-3, NAIA and others.

Some kind of oxymoron.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2018, 04:04:37 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2018, 09:58:16 PM
Mississippi University for Women is resuming intercollegiate athletics with 5 men's and 5 women's sports (but no Winter Sports for either men or women).  They were D-2 (women only) when they discontinued intercollegiate athletics 15 years ago.  The Mission/Vision Statement say that they are D-3.

http://www.owlsathletics.com/information/mission_vision

The baseball schedule is a mixture of D-3, NAIA and others.

I was under the impression they were making their way into D3 and possibly changing their name. I don't remember where that was last posted, but it was discussed in the last year.

As for sports, I believe you have to have a minimum, but last I checked, I don't think there is a season requirement. Case in point, Mass Maritime has NO winter season sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2018, 04:28:44 PM
There is a requirement that you have one sport in each season -- Mass Maritime has a waiver because of the nature of the institution.

"20.11.3 Sports Sponsorship. A member institution shall sponsor in Division III a minimum number of sports based on institutional enrollment. At least one sport involving an all-male team or a mixed team and at least one sport involving an all-female team shall be conducted in every sport season. All sports used to meet the minimum sports sponsorship requirements must meet the minimum contest and participant requirements per Bylaw 20.11.3.8. (Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/01, 1/9/06 effective 8/1/10, 5/4/06)"
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 11, 2018, 05:22:37 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2018, 04:04:37 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2018, 09:58:16 PM
Mississippi University for Women is resuming intercollegiate athletics with 5 men's and 5 women's sports (but no Winter Sports for either men or women).  They were D-2 (women only) when they discontinued intercollegiate athletics 15 years ago.  The Mission/Vision Statement say that they are D-3.

http://www.owlsathletics.com/information/mission_vision

The baseball schedule is a mixture of D-3, NAIA and others.

I was under the impression they were making their way into D3 and possibly changing their name. I don't remember where that was last posted, but it was discussed in the last year.

As for sports, I believe you have to have a minimum, but last I checked, I don't think there is a season requirement. Case in point, Mass Maritime has NO winter season sports.
I don't know about changing their name but they were listed as exploratory for 2017-18
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 11, 2018, 05:55:49 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2018, 04:04:37 PMI was under the impression they were making their way into D3 and possibly changing their name. I don't remember where that was last posted, but it was discussed in the last year.

The attempt to change MUW's name to Reneau University came almost a decade ago, at the instigation of the school's former president. It failed to pass in the state senate. (http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2010/feb/01/senate-passes-on-muw-name-change/)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2018, 06:05:30 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 11, 2018, 05:22:37 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2018, 04:04:37 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2018, 09:58:16 PM
Mississippi University for Women is resuming intercollegiate athletics with 5 men's and 5 women's sports (but no Winter Sports for either men or women).  They were D-2 (women only) when they discontinued intercollegiate athletics 15 years ago.  The Mission/Vision Statement say that they are D-3.

http://www.owlsathletics.com/information/mission_vision

The baseball schedule is a mixture of D-3, NAIA and others.

I was under the impression they were making their way into D3 and possibly changing their name. I don't remember where that was last posted, but it was discussed in the last year.

As for sports, I believe you have to have a minimum, but last I checked, I don't think there is a season requirement. Case in point, Mass Maritime has NO winter season sports.
I don't know about changing their name but they were listed as exploratory for 2017-18
+1 for recalling that.

As for where to land in a conference, Columbus MS is in the middle of D3 nowhere.

Plus, they are a State School!  It is not like they have Sul Ross State's heritage of playing other private D3 schools for decades and of being a charter member of the ASC in 1996 and its predecessor, Texas Intercollegiate AA in 1976.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2018, 10:45:02 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2018, 04:28:44 PM
There is a requirement that you have one sport in each season -- Mass Maritime has a waiver because of the nature of the institution.

"20.11.3 Sports Sponsorship. A member institution shall sponsor in Division III a minimum number of sports based on institutional enrollment. At least one sport involving an all-male team or a mixed team and at least one sport involving an all-female team shall be conducted in every sport season. All sports used to meet the minimum sports sponsorship requirements must meet the minimum contest and participant requirements per Bylaw 20.11.3.8. (Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/01, 1/9/06 effective 8/1/10, 5/4/06)"

Thanks, Pat... I didn't have the time to double-check that and wasn't sure. Mentally noted from now on. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 11, 2018, 11:16:45 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 11, 2018, 06:05:30 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 11, 2018, 05:22:37 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2018, 04:04:37 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 10, 2018, 09:58:16 PM
Mississippi University for Women is resuming intercollegiate athletics with 5 men's and 5 women's sports (but no Winter Sports for either men or women).  They were D-2 (women only) when they discontinued intercollegiate athletics 15 years ago.  The Mission/Vision Statement say that they are D-3.

http://www.owlsathletics.com/information/mission_vision

The baseball schedule is a mixture of D-3, NAIA and others.

I was under the impression they were making their way into D3 and possibly changing their name. I don't remember where that was last posted, but it was discussed in the last year.

As for sports, I believe you have to have a minimum, but last I checked, I don't think there is a season requirement. Case in point, Mass Maritime has NO winter season sports.
I don't know about changing their name but they were listed as exploratory for 2017-18
+1 for recalling that.

As for where to land in a conference, Columbus MS is in the middle of D3 nowhere.

Plus, they are a State School!  It is not like they have Sul Ross State's heritage of playing other private D3 schools for decades and of being a charter member of the ASC in 1996 and its predecessor, Texas Intercollegiate AA in 1976.

Yep. MUW, or whatever the school ends up calling itself, looks like a prime candidate for the ACAA.

I sure hope that the Owls have better luck scheduling D3-sufficient schedules than their fellow Mississippi independent Rust used to have before it gave up and moved over to the NAIA last year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 12, 2018, 12:00:51 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 11, 2018, 11:16:45 PM

Yep. MUW, or whatever the school ends up calling itself, looks like a prime candidate for the ACAA.

I sure hope that the Owls have better luck scheduling D3-sufficient schedules than their fellow Mississippi independent Rust used to have before it gave up and moved over to the NAIA last year.
They are literally right in the middle of the Gulf South Conference!  Why not go D-2, unless there is so much resistance from the alumnae? They have only been co-ed for 30 years.

http://gscsports.org/sports/2015/8/6/GEN_0806150127.aspx
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on February 12, 2018, 10:33:46 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 12, 2018, 12:00:51 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 11, 2018, 11:16:45 PM

Yep. MUW, or whatever the school ends up calling itself, looks like a prime candidate for the ACAA.

I sure hope that the Owls have better luck scheduling D3-sufficient schedules than their fellow Mississippi independent Rust used to have before it gave up and moved over to the NAIA last year.
They are literally right in the middle of the Gulf South Conference!  Why not go D-2, unless there is so much resistance from the alumnae? They have only been co-ed for 30 years.

http://gscsports.org/sports/2015/8/6/GEN_0806150127.aspx
The Gulf South Conference is where they were when they previously had athletics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2018, 03:38:16 PM
I am still waiting to hear of the NCAA is going to still allow the ACAA to keep it's current format ... or if they will force them to compete in season ... or give them a grandfather clause and adjust moving forward. The ACAA's formation has caused DIII to review how conferences are formed and what they do to earn an AQ.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 13, 2018, 10:05:57 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2018, 03:38:16 PM
I am still waiting to hear of the NCAA is going to still allow the ACAA to keep it's current format ... or if they will force them to compete in season ... or give them a grandfather clause and adjust moving forward. The ACAA's formation has caused DIII to review how conferences are formed and what they do to earn an AQ.

I wonder if the NAC is going to try and expand and go divisional once some of these NY schools come into full membership.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bmo on February 14, 2018, 04:20:35 PM
The University of St Thomas in Houston is joining D3 and the SCAC. 

http://www.ustcelts.com/article/934.php
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2018, 05:01:16 PM
Well done, SCAC! For a league that was on death's doorstep a few years ago when most of the membership broke off and started its own league, the SCAC has rebounded nicely and is now going to be up to ten members.

This will tick off the followers of the Minnesota all-sports powerhouse who will now have to put up with d3sports.com, and us non-MIAC d3boards.com types, who will now start referring to the Tommies as St. Thomas (MN).  ;)

It's always good to see D3 expand in regions where it is underrepresented. This is not only good for the SCAC, it'll also be good for the ASC, since there will now be one more not-a-million-miles-away (unless you're hapless Sul Ross State) D3 school that ASC programs can schedule for non-conference play.

(I know what you're thinking, Ralph ... Abilene and Houston are six hours' driving distance apart. Well, everything's relative. :D)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on February 14, 2018, 05:21:59 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2018, 05:01:16 PM
Well done, SCAC! For a league that was on death's doorstep a few years ago when most of the membership broke off and started its own league, the SCAC has rebounded nicely and is now going to be up to ten members.

This will tick off the followers of the Minnesota all-sports powerhouse who will now have to put up with d3sports.com, and us non-MIAC d3boards.com types, who will now start referring to the Tommies as St. Thomas (MN).  ;)

It's always good to see D3 expand in regions where it is underrepresented. This is not only good for the SCAC, it'll also be good for the ASC, since there will now be one more not-a-million-miles-away (unless you're hapless Sul Ross State) D3 school that ASC programs can schedule for non-conference play.

(I know what you're thinking, Ralph ... Abilene and Houston are six hours' driving distance apart. Well, everything's relative. :D)

Gregory: beware, lest you call down upon your head the wrath of the mighty purple Thomists who rule the Twin Cities.   :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 14, 2018, 05:32:00 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2018, 05:01:16 PM
Well done, SCAC! For a league that was on death's doorstep a few years ago when most of the membership broke off and started its own league, the SCAC has rebounded nicely and is now going to be up to ten members.

This will tick off the followers of the Minnesota all-sports powerhouse who will now have to put up with d3sports.com, and us non-MIAC d3boards.com types, who will now start referring to the Tommies as St. Thomas (MN).  ;)

It's always good to see D3 expand in regions where it is underrepresented. This is not only good for the SCAC, it'll also be good for the ASC, since there will now be one more not-a-million-miles-away (unless you're hapless Sul Ross State) D3 school that ASC programs can schedule for non-conference play.

(I know what you're thinking, Ralph ... Abilene and Houston are six hours' driving distance apart. Well, everything's relative. :D)
Houston is at least 3-4 hours away from everywhere, in moderate traffic (which is a semi-annual occurrence!  :o  ) Four hours from Centenary, LeTU, and ETBU, UDallas...

The SCAC makes more sense for the University of St Thomas Celts than the NAIA Red River AC.

It does make sense for UST TX  to be a travel partner for Centenary tho'. Maybe the infrastructure bill will hasten the completion of IH-69 from Houston to Shreveport.   ;)

They offer:

Men:  XC, Soccer, Hoops and Golf
Women: VB, XC, Soccer, Hoops and Golf.

The logical addition is Tennis for a 5th sport. I am not sure if there is a natatorium nearby. That campus is in the middle of very upscale west Houston.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 14, 2018, 05:38:04 PM
St. Thomas (TX) is adding men's tennis, women's tennis, and baseball to get up to the requisite twelve athletic programs necessary for D3 membership.

Quote from: Warren Thompson on February 14, 2018, 05:21:59 PM
Gregory: beware, lest you call down upon your head the wrath of the mighty purple Thomists who rule the Twin Cities.   :)

Anything I could say would be naught but a momentary distraction for Tommies fans in their eternal war of words with Johnnies fans.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 15, 2018, 07:04:15 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 14, 2018, 05:32:00 PM
The SCAC makes more sense for the University of St Thomas Celts than the NAIA Red River AC.

It does make sense for UST TX  to be a travel partner for Centenary tho'. Maybe the infrastructure bill will hasten the completion of IH-69 from Houston to Shreveport.   ;)

They offer:

Men:  XC, Soccer, Hoops and Golf
Women: VB, XC, Soccer, Hoops and Golf.

The logical addition is Tennis for a 5th sport. I am not sure if there is a natatorium nearby. That campus is in the middle of very upscale west Houston.

They've already announced the following:
2018-2019: add men's and women's cross country.
2019-2020: add men's and women's tennis and baseball.

Altho it might make sense for them to match up with Centenary, given the location of the other schools they might actually pair with TLU depending on the sport.

Schreiner/Trinity
TLU/UST
CC/J&W
AC/Centenary
SW/UDallas

or

Schreiner/TU
TLU/SW
CC/J&W
AC/UD
UST/Centenary

Naw, on 2nd thought you are right, Ralph, the 2nd alignment makes more sense if all ten schools are involved.

This is a tribute to Dwayne Hanberry, the SCAC commissioner, who was able to stop the bleeding by convincing TLU, Schreiner, and Centenary to come to a league at death's door and has now brought two new schools into D3 from the wilds of the NAIA to help ensure continuity (and reduce the travel mess whenever CC was involved on a two-team weekend).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 15, 2018, 11:17:37 AM
He's also created an insurance policy of sorts for the league. If Colorado College and/or Johnson & Wales (CO) ever drop SCAC membership due to travel issues, the league now has eight other members to ensure both that the AQ remains intact and that there's an even number of teams (and viable travel partnering) to prevent scheduling from being disrupted.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: BBeber1 on February 26, 2018, 10:50:30 AM
Pratt Institute is starting the exploratory process & according to the article they're joining the ACAA:
http://goprattgo.com/general/2017-18/releases/20180216hyaowh

Bob Jones University also got accepted:
http://www.bjubruins.com/news/2018/2/15/general-ncaa-approves-bjus-application-for-exploratory-membership.aspx?path=general
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 27, 2018, 11:18:36 AM
Bob Jones would be the first D3 program in South Carolina.  I have a feeling they will find the level of competition much higher in D3 than NCCAA D2.   The next question is where will they land, as you notice there was no pre-announcement of a sponsoring conference.  They're not SAA material; the USA South, with 15 schools, might be a possibility.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2018, 11:59:39 AM
I believe USA South has them coming in, but honestly I've lost track with the craziness of the USA South. The news I am waiting to really hear is when does the USA South break apart. That is bound to happen.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2018, 12:28:00 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2018, 11:59:39 AM
I believe USA South has them coming in, but honestly I've lost track with the craziness of the USA South. The news I am waiting to really hear is when does the USA South break apart. That is bound to happen.
...I think so, with USA South parent allowing affiliates to hold access to the Football AQ.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2018, 01:01:25 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2018, 12:28:00 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2018, 11:59:39 AM
I believe USA South has them coming in, but honestly I've lost track with the craziness of the USA South. The news I am waiting to really hear is when does the USA South break apart. That is bound to happen.
...I think so, with USA South parent allowing affiliates to hold access to the Football AQ.

Yeah... I could see that as well. That actually might help all of them solve the problem far easier and smoothly otherwise.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 27, 2018, 02:28:09 PM
Perhaps, rather than break apart, the USA South could follow the MAC model and remain one unitary body with two discrete, geographically-based divisions (i.e., "conferences", to use the MAC language) that would give it both more manageability and a tighter travel footprint for each school while establishing an extra AQ for the sports in which it maintains those two "conferences".
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2018, 07:14:56 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 27, 2018, 02:28:09 PM
Perhaps, rather than break apart, the USA South could follow the MAC model and remain one unitary body with two discrete, geographically-based divisions (i.e., "conferences", to use the MAC language) that would give it both more manageability and a tighter travel footprint for each school while establishing an extra AQ for the sports in which it maintains those two "conferences".
Wow. There is a thread almost as long as the single round robin NESCAC thread.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2018, 01:59:04 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 27, 2018, 02:28:09 PM
Perhaps, rather than break apart, the USA South could follow the MAC model and remain one unitary body with two discrete, geographically-based divisions (i.e., "conferences", to use the MAC language) that would give it both more manageability and a tighter travel footprint for each school while establishing an extra AQ for the sports in which it maintains those two "conferences".

Not allowed. MAC is grandfathered in to that rule. NCAA has pushed them hard to be as separate as possible and has stated clearly (the division to be also clear) they won't allow it in the future.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jeffconn on March 01, 2018, 12:43:17 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2018, 11:59:39 AM
I believe USA South has them coming in, but honestly I've lost track with the craziness of the USA South. The news I am waiting to really hear is when does the USA South break apart. That is bound to happen.
Don't think USA South will break apart anytime soon. After Ferrum leaves this summer, USA South will have 13 co-ed schools and 5 women's colleges. If USA South splits, one of the new conferences will not have enough men's programs for automatic qualifiers.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2018, 12:00:44 PM
Quote from: jeffconn on March 01, 2018, 12:43:17 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2018, 11:59:39 AM
I believe USA South has them coming in, but honestly I've lost track with the craziness of the USA South. The news I am waiting to really hear is when does the USA South break apart. That is bound to happen.
Don't think USA South will break apart anytime soon. After Ferrum leaves this summer, USA South will have 13 co-ed schools and 5 women's colleges. If USA South splits, one of the new conferences will not have enough men's programs for automatic qualifiers.
Please correct me as needed.

Would not Bob Jones be the 14th men's program after Ferrum leaves?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jeffconn on March 01, 2018, 02:37:54 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2018, 12:00:44 PM
Quote from: jeffconn on March 01, 2018, 12:43:17 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2018, 11:59:39 AM
I believe USA South has them coming in, but honestly I've lost track with the craziness of the USA South. The news I am waiting to really hear is when does the USA South break apart. That is bound to happen.
Don't think USA South will break apart anytime soon. After Ferrum leaves this summer, USA South will have 13 co-ed schools and 5 women's colleges. If USA South splits, one of the new conferences will not have enough men's programs for automatic qualifiers.
Please correct me as needed.

Would not Bob Jones be the 14th men's program after Ferrum leaves?
Bob Jones hasn't applied to join the USA South yet. And even if it does, a split from 14 co-ed schools equals two 7 team conferences. And some men's sports would not have enough eligible teams to have two automatic qualifiers after a split.

Here's the numbers for some sports that USAS now sponsors in the 2017-18 year.
Football: 9, including Ferrum
Lacrosse: 9, including Ferrum
Cross country: 10, including Ferrum

That's 3 of the 8 men's sports that USA South now sponsors.

The USA South is a group of small private colleges, some of which barely sponsor enough sports to make the NCAA minimum for Division 3. Splitting up would be essentially like going back to being independent in those sports.

(modified by GS for formatting)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2018, 04:54:29 PM
Quote from: jeffconn on March 01, 2018, 02:37:54 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2018, 12:00:44 PM
Quote from: jeffconn on March 01, 2018, 12:43:17 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2018, 11:59:39 AM
I believe USA South has them coming in, but honestly I've lost track with the craziness of the USA South. The news I am waiting to really hear is when does the USA South break apart. That is bound to happen.
Don't think USA South will break apart anytime soon. After Ferrum leaves this summer, USA South will have 13 co-ed schools and 5 women's colleges. If USA South splits, one of the new conferences will not have enough men's programs for automatic qualifiers.
Please correct me as needed.

Would not Bob Jones be the 14th men's program after Ferrum leaves?



Bob Jones hasn't applied to join the USA South yet. And even if it does, a split from 14 co-ed schools equals two 7 team conferences. And some men's sports would not have enough eligible teams to have two automatic qualifiers after a split.

Here's the numbers for some sports that USAS now sponsors in the 2017-18 year.
Football: 9, including Ferrum
Lacrosse: 9, including Ferrum
Cross country: 10, including Ferrum

That's 3 of the 8 men's sports that USA South now sponsors.

The USA South is a group of small private colleges, some of which barely sponsor enough sports to make the NCAA minimum for Division 3. Splitting up would be essentially like going back to being independent in those sports.
Thanks for your response.

The "New South Conference" would need to sponsor 5 men's sports, one in each season with 7 participants in each sport.

The USA South as parent conference would only need 4 of the remaining members to be the core members for the sports (e.g., Lacrosse and Football) and the departing members could continue as "Affiliates" without any change in the AQ.



In re-reading the thread, I clarified the breaks in the postings to reflect more accurately which poster stated which.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2018, 08:44:30 PM
The five extra women's schools is what is really causing problems. BTW - not sure where else Bob Jones is going to go... so we might as well write them into the USA South at this point to replace Ferrum.

The conference is huge and they have a numbers issue especially with the fact that more schools in that area are starting to think about joining DIII (from what rumors say; we have to wait and see). The USA South has turned into a catch-all. A second conference isn't a horrible idea. Yes, I can see numbers issues, but maybe something will work its way out.

Personally, I've had an idea for all the women's schools, but I have said that enough times on Hoopsville.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 02, 2018, 08:38:22 AM
On a different note:   Hartwick College is abandoning their D1 men's soccer program in favor of a D3 program, and totally abandoning their D1 women's water polo program.   That will reduce the number of split D3/D1 schools by one starting next season. 

https://twitter.com/HartwickCollege/status/969294923873898496

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2018, 09:46:30 AM
They tried to kill D-I soccer there about a decade ago. I suppose it will probably stick this time.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on March 02, 2018, 10:00:46 AM
It's got to be getting to the point where the compliance costs of holding a DI program or two within a DIII athletic department are outweighing the benefits. Especially for a fringe spectator sport like soccer. I can almost see it with lax, and certainly the costs at a school like JHU can be buried and absorbed, but I wonder how long Hobart will hold out, even with their history. I also have no idea how the hockey teams do it. Hockey is just about the most expensive sport you can have, so that adds even more expense.

Anyone have a complete list of the grandfathered schools that still remain in those sports? We can bet on who is next.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on March 02, 2018, 11:11:44 AM
Quote from: jknezek on March 02, 2018, 10:00:46 AM
It's got to be getting to the point where the compliance costs of holding a DI program or two within a DIII athletic department are outweighing the benefits. Especially for a fringe spectator sport like soccer. I can almost see it with lax, and certainly the costs at a school like JHU can be buried and absorbed, but I wonder how long Hobart will hold out, even with their history. I also have no idea how the hockey teams do it. Hockey is just about the most expensive sport you can have, so that adds even more expense.

Anyone have a complete list of the grandfathered schools that still remain in those sports? We can bet on who is next.

m/w hockey is RPI, Union, Clarkson, St. Lawrence and RIT. Colorado College women's soccer, Hobart men's lax, Johns Hopkins men's/women's lax, and I think that's the list as far as D3 is concerned.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2018, 11:45:12 AM
Colorado College men's ice hockey goes on that list.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on March 02, 2018, 12:04:41 PM
knew I was missing something Pat (and a reason for CC women's soccer to be D1 in the first place)...thanks
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 02, 2018, 08:24:56 PM

There are a couple d1 sports that got added after the grandfather, which means they can't give athletic scholarships, but still compete at d1.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on March 03, 2018, 02:19:43 PM
today I learned Franklin & Marshall wrestling is D1.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on March 04, 2018, 11:41:47 AM
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2018, 01:49:42 PM
Quote from: sunny on March 04, 2018, 11:41:47 AM
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.

You should talk to the folks at Johns Hopkins about all the hoops they have to jump through to prove to the NCAA that their d3 programs are not benefiting from d1 money.  Maybe it's not perfect, but they're keeping an eye on things.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on March 06, 2018, 06:51:49 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2018, 01:49:42 PM
Quote from: sunny on March 04, 2018, 11:41:47 AM
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.

You should talk to the folks at Johns Hopkins about all the hoops they have to jump through to prove to the NCAA that their d3 programs are not benefiting from d1 money.  Maybe it's not perfect, but they're keeping an eye on things.

Oh, I don't doubt that, and I do believe all those boxes are being checked as best they can. And I'll reiterate that yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair. As a Division III purist of sorts, I simply wish it had never been allowed to begin with.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 06, 2018, 07:12:52 AM
Quote from: sunny on March 06, 2018, 06:51:49 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2018, 01:49:42 PM
Quote from: sunny on March 04, 2018, 11:41:47 AM
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.

You should talk to the folks at Johns Hopkins about all the hoops they have to jump through to prove to the NCAA that their d3 programs are not benefiting from d1 money.  Maybe it's not perfect, but they're keeping an eye on things.

Oh, I don't doubt that, and I do believe all those boxes are being checked as best they can. And I'll reiterate that yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair. As a Division III purist of sorts, I simply wish it had never been allowed to begin with.

I'm assuming "yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair" is probably the same rationale that kept them from doing it before.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 06, 2018, 09:02:17 AM
Quote from: sunny on March 06, 2018, 06:51:49 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2018, 01:49:42 PM
Quote from: sunny on March 04, 2018, 11:41:47 AM
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.

You should talk to the folks at Johns Hopkins about all the hoops they have to jump through to prove to the NCAA that their d3 programs are not benefiting from d1 money.  Maybe it's not perfect, but they're keeping an eye on things.

Oh, I don't doubt that, and I do believe all those boxes are being checked as best they can. And I'll reiterate that yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair. As a Division III purist of sorts, I simply wish it had never been allowed to begin with.

I suppose it was originally to "soften the blow" for schools moving from D1 to D3.  My alma mater made the transition decades ago but kept the only D1 program where it had which had much success, tennis (including a student who won Wimbledon as a senior; yes, it was a long time ago).    After about 15 years the (IMO correct) decision was made that scholarship players in one sport did not fit the school's mission and the program was moved to D3 status.   More schools will continue to do that, but there will likely be a few outliers who want to keep the "prestige" of a D1 program or two. 

That said, it certainly was impressive to see our guys competing with John McEnroe's top-ranked Stanford squad during my time there; if memory serves (and this article backs it up (https://spmt3314.omeka.net/exhibits/show/the-beginning-of-a-dynasty--th/larry-gottfried)), we dealt him his only collegiate singles loss. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on March 06, 2018, 10:16:11 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 06, 2018, 07:12:52 AM
Quote from: sunny on March 06, 2018, 06:51:49 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2018, 01:49:42 PM
Quote from: sunny on March 04, 2018, 11:41:47 AM
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.

You should talk to the folks at Johns Hopkins about all the hoops they have to jump through to prove to the NCAA that their d3 programs are not benefiting from d1 money.  Maybe it's not perfect, but they're keeping an eye on things.

Oh, I don't doubt that, and I do believe all those boxes are being checked as best they can. And I'll reiterate that yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair. As a Division III purist of sorts, I simply wish it had never been allowed to begin with.

I'm assuming "yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair" is probably the same rationale that kept them from doing it before.

Perhaps, but that was the time to force them to make the choice. After that point, no Division III school could *add* a scholarship sport (save for adding an opposite gender one for equity purposes).

Once you've given the "grandfathered status," going back on that would be more unfair, no?

So that brings up a larger philosophical question - grandfathering anything without a specified end date (or at least a specified revisiting date) is sort of a silly thing to do, no?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on March 06, 2018, 10:20:08 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 06, 2018, 09:02:17 AM
Quote from: sunny on March 06, 2018, 06:51:49 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 04, 2018, 01:49:42 PM
Quote from: sunny on March 04, 2018, 11:41:47 AM
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.

You should talk to the folks at Johns Hopkins about all the hoops they have to jump through to prove to the NCAA that their d3 programs are not benefiting from d1 money.  Maybe it's not perfect, but they're keeping an eye on things.

Oh, I don't doubt that, and I do believe all those boxes are being checked as best they can. And I'll reiterate that yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair. As a Division III purist of sorts, I simply wish it had never been allowed to begin with.

I suppose it was originally to "soften the blow" for schools moving from D1 to D3.  My alma mater made the transition decades ago but kept the only D1 program where it had which had much success, tennis (including a student who won Wimbledon as a senior; yes, it was a long time ago).    After about 15 years the (IMO correct) decision was made that scholarship players in one sport did not fit the school's mission and the program was moved to D3 status.   More schools will continue to do that, but there will likely be a few outliers who want to keep the "prestige" of a D1 program or two. 

That said, it certainly was impressive to see our guys competing with John McEnroe's top-ranked Stanford squad during my time there; if memory serves (and this article backs it up (https://spmt3314.omeka.net/exhibits/show/the-beginning-of-a-dynasty--th/larry-gottfried)), we dealt him his only collegiate singles loss.

I agree that we will see more of these grandfathered programs who haven't had much success go by the wayside - which will frankly make the ones that *have* been successful stick out like even greater legislated exceptions.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2018, 03:25:02 PM
Per the grandfather - the rule wasn't going to be passed unless they put a grandfather clause in. That is the case with all rules, however part of the grandfather clause was that those with one DI program HAD to comply with Title IX and bring up another to compensate. Hopkins brought up women's lacrosse to compensate for men's lacrosse, Hobart brought up women's water polo to compensate for men's soccer, Colorado College brought up women's soccer to compensate for men's soccer. There are plenty of other examples in the hockey rhelm.

Yes, Hartwick tried to kill off DI soccer in the past, but the alums rallied and saved it. Really can't see it being saved now and water polo has to come back with them as a result.

Ryan spoke to it, the grandfather does force there to be two different budgets essentially and DIII teams can't directly benefit from the D1 brethren. Sure, there are things that help like when JHU got a new field for lacrosse, football, soccer, field hockey benefited with a new field (which was so badly needed; I could tell you stories about the old field having played on it when I was an SA). However, if you ever look at the field during a football game you will notice something specific - it was not designed, as most multi-purpose fields are, with football in mind. I can't tell you how many people are confused by the colors and the endzone, because the coloring has lacrosse in mind.

I am fine with the grandfather rule. Those who had D1 programs shouldn't be punished with the "all-division" rule because they existed prior. It also helped control schools who were just jumping around for no reason parts of their departments. Title IX also helped with some of this. I don't see schools who benefit because of their D1 brethren in any degree that makes it a problem. Heck, now at JHU they have a completely different building for lacrosse - removed them completely from the rest of the department. So be it. D1 raises it's money; D3 it's. It works for those small number of schools that have it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 06, 2018, 09:53:12 PM
Colorado College is men's ice hockey, not men's soccer. Did I suddenly become the hockey expert?  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 07, 2018, 07:38:11 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 06, 2018, 09:53:12 PM
Colorado College is men's ice hockey, not men's soccer. Did I suddenly become the hockey expert?

You're lucky nobody from Colorado Springs (other than my immediate family) knows this site exists - you can get drawn and quartered for disparaging CC hockey.  They built a 6,000 seat arena just for them - granted, it's gone bankrupt like seven times and continuously changes owners, but people love CC hockey out there and you can't say otherwise!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 07, 2018, 12:46:35 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 06, 2018, 09:53:12 PM
Colorado College is men's ice hockey, not men's soccer. Did I suddenly become the hockey expert?  ;D

Eh - typo on my part. I meant ice hockey. I am not sure how I switched that even in my head. I called a Colorado College WSOC game last year at Georgetown and made the ice hockey reference... so it isn't like I don't know that one pretty well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 07, 2018, 12:49:02 PM
Found this interesting to read: https://www.stevenspointjournal.com/story/news/2018/03/05/uw-stevens-point-plans-cut-12-majors-add-expand-16-programs/395613002/

Especially in juxtaposition of this: https://www.biztimes.com/2018/industries/arts-entertainment-sports/uw-whitewater-planning-expansion-of-athletic-and-recreational-facilities/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 07, 2018, 01:19:01 PM
Interesting - and NCAA Research posted this a couple of days ago:  https://twitter.com/NCAAResearch/status/970686891472416770

"While the number of student-athletes at Division III schools has increased by 5% over the past five years, the overall student body enrollment on those campuses has decreased by 3%."

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on March 07, 2018, 05:47:51 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 06, 2018, 09:02:17 AM

I suppose it was originally to "soften the blow" for schools moving from D1 to D3.  My alma mater made the transition decades ago but kept the only D1 program where it had which had much success, tennis (including a student who won Wimbledon as a senior; yes, it was a long time ago).    After about 15 years the (IMO correct) decision was made that scholarship players in one sport did not fit the school's mission and the program was moved to D3 status.   More schools will continue to do that, but there will likely be a few outliers who want to keep the "prestige" of a D1 program or two. 

That said, it certainly was impressive to see our guys competing with John McEnroe's top-ranked Stanford squad during my time there; if memory serves (and this article backs it up (https://spmt3314.omeka.net/exhibits/show/the-beginning-of-a-dynasty--th/larry-gottfried)), we dealt him his only collegiate singles loss.

You cannot be serious!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W54JbiiKHsQ
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on March 08, 2018, 06:41:05 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 07, 2018, 01:19:01 PM
Interesting - and NCAA Research posted this a couple of days ago:  https://twitter.com/NCAAResearch/status/970686891472416770

"While the number of student-athletes at Division III schools has increased by 5% over the past five years, the overall student body enrollment on those campuses has decreased by 3%."

That's an excellent topic. Many Division III schools will lean harder and harder on athletics as an enrollment driver, often under the notion that the school wants to grow or maintain and needs to keep its "ratio" (% of students who are athletes) intact in order to do so. The evidence would suggest that that's not the case nationally - the ratio is actually RISING as many of the schools struggle to keep their beds full. You wonder if there is a bubble in there somewhere.

(We've seen a specific subset of that bubble bursting in some cases - the large number of midwestern schools who added lacrosse - specifically men's - as enrollment driver. Many of these schools already had football, looked at the size of men's lacrosse rosters out east and thought that was a fix. What's happened at a number of those schools is a struggle to field a full roster, in some cases suspending or dropping the program all together. Obviously that's a very specific circumstance - such a large number of schools added it at a rapid rate that they are cannibalizing each other for the rather limited pool of regional recruits - and playing lacrosse in, say, Michigan is not as natural of a sell to a kid from the Mid-Atlantic or Northeast as playing down south or out west might be. But I do wonder if we'll see more, perhaps less pronounced, cases of this as departments continue to expand and roster expectations continue to increase.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2018, 10:50:37 AM
The specific enrollment driver provided by athletics is typically oriented towards resolving a lopsided female:male ratio as much as it is towards getting warm bodies through the door of the admissions department. Even when schools add women's sports alongside men's sports (probably in a great many cases for Title IX reasons, even if the school won't admit it), the idea is that men's sports tend to have significantly larger rosters than do their women's-sport counterparts. Look at midwestern-based schools that have men's and women's lacrosse, for example. Almost every midwestern school that has lacrosse programs has added them within the past decade or so -- and the size of the men's rosters far outstrips the size of the women's rosters, sometimes even doubling their size. With the way that men's volleyball has started to take off as a new sport, we could start to see this trend in volleyball as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on March 08, 2018, 12:26:43 PM
What I have seen is a roster 'bloat' on the women's side - a large volleyball or soccer roster to offset some Title IX issues.

It's really noticeable in volleyball, when you have 20+ on a roster at times and very few subs (even if you have a designated server and play two setters).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 08, 2018, 02:14:00 PM
Who are the new lacrosse schools which have struggled to maintain rosters? I haven't heard.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on March 08, 2018, 03:59:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 08, 2018, 02:14:00 PM
Who are the new lacrosse schools which have struggled to maintain rosters? I haven't heard.

Houghton, for one, added lacrosse when they moved in from NAIA to the Empire 8, they only have 15 or 16 guys this year. Anything less than 25 and you're asking for blowouts via exhaustion (at best) and injuries (at worst). I'm sure I could find several others. Bard (3rd or 4th year back since a false start around 2010) is 1-1 and I think they only played about 15 guys their first couple games.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2018, 05:51:55 PM
Yeah, but Houghton and Bard are located in the traditional hotbed of lacrosse. It's been a major high-school sport in New York State for, heck, the better part of a century by now. What sunny specifically talked about are midwestern schools that have added lacrosse and are now have trouble filling out their rosters. It's because lacrosse is a new-ish sport in this part of the country, and there's still only a certain number of high schools that have lacrosse teams.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 08, 2018, 06:54:26 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2018, 05:51:55 PM
Yeah, but Houghton and Bard are located in the traditional hotbed of lacrosse. It's been a major high-school sport in New York State for, heck, the better part of a century by now. What sunny specifically talked about are midwestern schools that have added lacrosse and are now have trouble filling out their rosters. It's because lacrosse is a new-ish sport in this part of the country, and there's still only a certain number of high schools that have lacrosse teams.

True, but it is growing VERY rapidly in at least some parts of the midwest.  Son #1 (now 29) was a founding member of the first lacrosse team at Ypsilanti HS (he and a neighbor were the ONLY ones who had ANY experience whatsoever - they had been to a one-week camp :P).  I haven't tracked down the actual numbers, but my impression is that the number of Michigan high schools offering lacrosse has more than doubled in the last two decades.  Most of them are probably as bad as my son's team was back then, but there are a number of schools that are nationally competitive.  I have no idea how many potential college lacrosse players they produce, but it surely must be at least enough to fill the rosters of 3-5 college teams.

Popularity of different sports rise and fall over time - I'd judge lacrosse (in Michigan, at least) to be about where soccer was in the 70s or 80s.  And no one seems worried about the state of college soccer these days!  (When I was growing up (50s and early 60s), no one in my part of downstate Illinois, except for 'non-Americanized' ethnics, had ever heard of soccer!)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 08, 2018, 08:05:26 PM
Another reason to add lacrosse wasn't just because it can help enrollment, but because the sport is expanding as previously mentioned. I haven't heard of schools struggling with it... or dropping it. The biggest problem in DIII lacrosse is the fact the men's committee won't expand regions (need to double-check they haven't solved that for this season). That could hamper things, but I digress.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 09, 2018, 03:57:45 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 08, 2018, 06:54:26 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 08, 2018, 05:51:55 PM
Yeah, but Houghton and Bard are located in the traditional hotbed of lacrosse. It's been a major high-school sport in New York State for, heck, the better part of a century by now. What sunny specifically talked about are midwestern schools that have added lacrosse and are now have trouble filling out their rosters. It's because lacrosse is a new-ish sport in this part of the country, and there's still only a certain number of high schools that have lacrosse teams.

True, but it is growing VERY rapidly in at least some parts of the midwest.  Son #1 (now 29) was a founding member of the first lacrosse team at Ypsilanti HS (he and a neighbor were the ONLY ones who had ANY experience whatsoever - they had been to a one-week camp :P).  I haven't tracked down the actual numbers, but my impression is that the number of Michigan high schools offering lacrosse has more than doubled in the last two decades.  Most of them are probably as bad as my son's team was back then, but there are a number of schools that are nationally competitive.  I have no idea how many potential college lacrosse players they produce, but it surely must be at least enough to fill the rosters of 3-5 college teams.

Popularity of different sports rise and fall over time - I'd judge lacrosse (in Michigan, at least) to be about where soccer was in the 70s or 80s.  And no one seems worried about the state of college soccer these days!  (When I was growing up (50s and early 60s), no one in my part of downstate Illinois, except for 'non-Americanized' ethnics, had ever heard of soccer!)

Nobody said that midwestern high-school lacrosse wasn't expanding. Heck, why do you think that so many midwestern colleges have added the sport in the first place? Do you see them adding cricket? Squash? Curling? 43-man squamish? They're adding lacrosse because midwestern high schools are starting to pick up the sport.

Regardless, that doesn't mean that supply is keeping up with demand. If D3 colleges and universities in this part of the country are creating lacrosse programs faster than the pool of high-school lacrosse players who are willing to shell out the bucks to attend a D3 school in order to play college lacrosse is expanding, then you get the shortage of which sunny spoke.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on March 09, 2018, 09:49:02 AM
Two things:

#1) Men's and women's lacrosse are two very different sports, so a men's roster of 15-20 is wholly unsustainable, while you might be able to get by with that for women's. Healthy men's programs will carry from the low to mid 30s up to 50 or more (whereas healthy women's programs are generally low 20s to around 30). Greg, you are right, that that was part of the draw for lacrosse - the anticipation that men's rosters would be close to, or double that, of women's, but that's part and parcel to the sport(s). You'd be hard-pressed to find rosters of that size common among the new Midwestern teams, so they are not getting what they were hoping for.

#2) Some examples, Olivet has seen a DECLINING men's roster as more Michigan schools added. They currently show 16 on their men's roster. That is not sustainable. Defiance College added men's lacrosse only to drop it due to struggles with fielding a roster. There are others who have struggled. The game has grown in the midwest, but some of the top talent is still going east and the growth of talented players at the high school level who want to continue to play in college is just not keeping pace. Dave is right that the stubbornness of the men's lacrosse regional set-up (and even the structure of the national tournament) is not helping.

I do understand that this is a special case with specific problems, but I wonder if we will see something similar, on a small scale, anyway, play out elsewhere as the % of student-athletes goes up while overall enrollment declines. Especially as schools add sports as a way to offset the latter. There will be a tipping point, it's just a question of when and how bad will it be.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on March 09, 2018, 11:07:45 AM
Why don't colleges add academic programs in order to bolster enrollment? A Department of Applied Witchcraft just might work better than, say, Gaelic football or hurling. Might even be cheaper in the long run (no uniforms or exotic equipment or bus trips -- just purely natural/organic stuff such as eyes of newts, nail clippings, toad tongues ... that sort of stuff).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 09, 2018, 11:34:38 AM
They do, WT. F'rinstance, check out the story about UWSP's academic reconfiguring that was linked to in the WIAC men's basketball room a couple of days ago. (Warning: It's not for the faint-of-heart among liberal arts supporters.)

Colleges and universities are scrambling to find any way possible to keep up their enrollments. It's a both/and situation rather than an either/or.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on March 09, 2018, 11:41:34 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 09, 2018, 11:34:38 AM
They do, WT. F'rinstance, check out the story about UWSP's academic reconfiguring that was linked to in the WIAC men's basketball room a couple of days ago. (Warning: It's not for the faint-of-heart among liberal arts supporters.)

Colleges and universities are scrambling to find any way possible to keep up their enrollments. It's a both/and situation rather than an either/or.

+1

And, yes, my hypotheticals are framed within the larger reality of the higher education bubble. Schools try all sorts of tricks and bells and whistles to maintain or grow enrollment and keep the balance sheets even - unsurprisingly, they all take an amount of capital lay-out and ongoing operating money, so if something expensive doesn't work out in a big way, the school can be worse off than if it had stood pat - but of course, few schools could afford to choose to stand pat even if they wanted to. And as more schools add more sports and more schools add more majors, and more schools build apartment-style dorms, and more schools build all sorts of other things, those things remain expensive to start and maintain (why does College cost so much again?) while becoming less of a differentiator. And, the bottom line is, most of those efforts are steeped in cannibalization - you're focused on enrolling students who probably would have gone elsewhere rather than skipping college entirely. In short, that means colleges and universities are investing in their own survival (of course!) but those efforts generally do not create more total college students. Hence, some institutions are going to lose. And lose quickly as they invest resources to try to stay afloat or keep up with the Joneses.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2018, 12:14:05 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 09, 2018, 11:34:38 AM
They do, WT. F'rinstance, check out the story about UWSP's academic reconfiguring that was linked to in the WIAC men's basketball room a couple of days ago. (Warning: It's not for the faint-of-heart among liberal arts supporters.)

Colleges and universities are scrambling to find any way possible to keep up their enrollments. It's a both/and situation rather than an either/or.

Psst... shared it hear a page ago... LOL

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 07, 2018, 12:49:02 PM
Found this interesting to read: https://www.stevenspointjournal.com/story/news/2018/03/05/uw-stevens-point-plans-cut-12-majors-add-expand-16-programs/395613002/

Especially in juxtaposition of this: https://www.biztimes.com/2018/industries/arts-entertainment-sports/uw-whitewater-planning-expansion-of-athletic-and-recreational-facilities/

Might that be where you read it? I didn't see it in the WIAC page... but I might have missed it as I sped read recently.

BTW - lots of schools find other ways to get students in. I am somewhat fascinated at the "new" president at Goucher and what they are doing with dorms, buildings, learning, etc... including what I had not realized was an overhaul of many of the athletics facilities and such. Not sure when that is supposed to start, but it surprised me (probably starting after equestrian gets its overhaul which then officially allows them to start using the space equestrian was in for the remodeling of everything else.

Also, Goucher has long prided itself not only on its academics obviously, but its dance program as well. That is a major part of its enrollment with athletics (equestrian) and others. There are ways to do it without athletics... and I think Goucher has finally figured out how to do it WITH athletics as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 09, 2018, 12:48:32 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2018, 12:14:05 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 09, 2018, 11:34:38 AM
They do, WT. F'rinstance, check out the story about UWSP's academic reconfiguring that was linked to in the WIAC men's basketball room a couple of days ago. (Warning: It's not for the faint-of-heart among liberal arts supporters.)

Colleges and universities are scrambling to find any way possible to keep up their enrollments. It's a both/and situation rather than an either/or.

Psst... shared it hear a page ago... LOL

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 07, 2018, 12:49:02 PM
Found this interesting to read: https://www.stevenspointjournal.com/story/news/2018/03/05/uw-stevens-point-plans-cut-12-majors-add-expand-16-programs/395613002/

Especially in juxtaposition of this: https://www.biztimes.com/2018/industries/arts-entertainment-sports/uw-whitewater-planning-expansion-of-athletic-and-recreational-facilities/

Might that be where you read it? I didn't see it in the WIAC page... but I might have missed it as I sped read recently.

It probably was. I didn't backtrack to double-check that that was where I had seen it.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2018, 12:14:05 PMBTW - lots of schools find other ways to get students in. I am somewhat fascinated at the "new" president at Goucher and what they are doing with dorms, buildings, learning, etc... including what I had not realized was an overhaul of many of the athletics facilities and such. Not sure when that is supposed to start, but it surprised me (probably starting after equestrian gets its overhaul which then officially allows them to start using the space equestrian was in for the remodeling of everything else.

Also, Goucher has long prided itself not only on its academics obviously, but its dance program as well. That is a major part of its enrollment with athletics (equestrian) and others. There are ways to do it without athletics... and I think Goucher has finally figured out how to do it WITH athletics as well.

Some schools are looking to international students to boost static enrollment figures. NPU is going that route, which makes sense when you consider that it's located within a dynamic and diverse world-class city that thus offers international students a specifically American higher-education experience, exposure to myriad cultures, and practically limitless internship opportunities. That's particularly attractive to Scandinavian students, whose home countries are still relatively homogenous from a cultural perspective -- and that has dovetailed nicely for NPU athletics, as a large percentage of North Park's best student-athletes in recent years have been Swedes or Norwegians. In response, the school has tailored several of its academic programs to specifically fit the needs of those international students -- International Business is now one of the biggest majors on campus, and the Sports Medicine major has been re-shaped to cover not only the requirements for Illinois athletic training licensure (which transfers well to other states, given the high level of Illinois's requirements) but Sweden's and Norway's athletic training licensure requirements as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2018, 11:40:01 PM
Yeah... NPU's decision is what gave me nightmares for ten days leading up to the soccer championships. And it had to be the fourth game... it had to be the last one... LOL
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2018, 12:24:27 PM
Been hearing rumblings for years... keep an eye on this: http://thebottomlinenews.com/fsu-athletic-conference-affiliation-from-the-cac-to-the-mountain-east/

This could spell disaster for the CAC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 12, 2018, 04:48:38 PM
This:

QuoteNowaczyk noted that Frostburg State is committed to maintaining the stability of CAC but will explore further options to protect the University's 21 varsity sports. He also mentioned that Frostburg decided to utilize the services of Strategic Edge Athletic Consultants who would oversee "an assessment of the athletic program's readiness to compete" at the Division II level.

... strikes me as a pair of contradicting decisions, since the trend in D3 schools moving to D2 is for them to jettison sports in doing so, especially if they had offered 20+ sports (as Frostburg State does) as a D3 institution.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2018, 09:53:45 PM
I read that part a dozen times. I thought I was reading things. Starts seemingly like they are denying the idea and are committed to the conference, but by the end the paragraph, it seems like they are ready to explore DII.

Not sure about jettisoning sports. No clue what FSU would do. I'm personally more interested in seeing how the state supplies them more money - it isn't like Maryland is swimming in funds. Budget conversations are always ... fun in this state.

They would just be the second DII school in the state if they left... and I think they would be even more anonymous if they did. I think they get more attention in DIII, but ... we shall see.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 13, 2018, 10:59:11 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2018, 09:53:45 PM
I read that part a dozen times. I thought I was reading things. Starts seemingly like they are denying the idea and are committed to the conference, but by the end the paragraph, it seems like they are ready to explore DII.

Not sure about jettisoning sports. No clue what FSU would do. I'm personally more interested in seeing how the state supplies them more money - it isn't like Maryland is swimming in funds. Budget conversations are always ... fun in this state.

All the more reason why FSU would be likely to eliminate some of the sports it currently offers if it moved to D2. As I said, it's generally true of schools that make this move -- and for a public school that's located in a state whose government is hard-pressed to rein in spending, it's not likely that Frostburg State is going to find Annapolis generous in this regard.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on March 13, 2018, 12:16:39 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 13, 2018, 10:59:11 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 12, 2018, 09:53:45 PM
I read that part a dozen times. I thought I was reading things. Starts seemingly like they are denying the idea and are committed to the conference, but by the end the paragraph, it seems like they are ready to explore DII.

Not sure about jettisoning sports. No clue what FSU would do. I'm personally more interested in seeing how the state supplies them more money - it isn't like Maryland is swimming in funds. Budget conversations are always ... fun in this state.

All the more reason why FSU would be likely to eliminate some of the sports it currently offers if it moved to D2. As I said, it's generally true of schools that make this move -- and for a public school that's located in a state whose government is hard-pressed to rein in spending, it's not likely that Frostburg State is going to find Annapolis generous in this regard.

It would be interesting. For a combination of reasons (cost, conference affiliation, gender balance), I could see field hockey and men's lacrosse getting the ax (perhaps others as well) - and that would be a real let-down in the latter's case after the program became pretty darned solid in such a short period of time.

Frostburg has always been a weird bird. They mostly recruit to their east, but their physical geography tells a different story. Perhaps a move to Division II could potentially solve the latter issue while not having to sacrifice the former (maybe easier to get over rarely - never? - playing near your family if there's a little athletic scholarship money attached).

Of course, were the CAC to implode, I imagine some of the other remaining CAC state schools might have a tough time finding a conference home in DIII. This could potentially be a pretty big domino effect. We'll see.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on March 13, 2018, 04:23:43 PM
I'm always in favor of a 43-man squamish reference.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on March 13, 2018, 04:30:19 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 13, 2018, 04:23:43 PM
I'm always in favor of a 43-man squamish reference.

Is that related to a "twenty-one sun galoot"? Kindly advise soonest.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 13, 2018, 04:57:54 PM
Here you go, WT:

http://www.madcoversite.com/quiz_olympics.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 13, 2018, 04:58:25 PM
Quote from: sunny on March 13, 2018, 12:16:39 PM
It would be interesting. For a combination of reasons (cost, conference affiliation, gender balance), I could see field hockey and men's lacrosse getting the ax (perhaps others as well) - and that would be a real let-down in the latter's case after the program became pretty darned solid in such a short period of time.
While there is no DII team in Maryland with lacrosse (Bowie is the only one, doesn't offer it)... I would be pretty shocked if they cut lacrosse. DII is ripe for the taking in that sport, it needs more numbers, and Frostburg has had a long history. And cutting that sport in the state of Maryland... that, too, is a tough hill to climb. That could cause a revolt. Not that they wouldn't consider it, I just don't think knowing the school, state, etc. they would get very far. (You know lacrosse is the team sport of Maryland; name me the sport of Maryland [don't look it up!] and I'll give ya karma).

Quote from: sunny on March 13, 2018, 12:16:39 PM
Frostburg has always been a weird bird. They mostly recruit to their east, but their physical geography tells a different story. Perhaps a move to Division II could potentially solve the latter issue while not having to sacrifice the former (maybe easier to get over rarely - never? - playing near your family if there's a little athletic scholarship money attached).
Weird yes, but also strong over the years. I remember playing soccer in DIII and they were a fearsome program. Had an old buddy of mine play for that team. They were always well prepared (story for another time of how our lowly team nearly took them out). Maybe a move helps them. Personally, I think it might hurt them and make them more lost where they are.

Quote from: sunny on March 13, 2018, 12:16:39 PM
Of course, were the CAC to implode, I imagine some of the other remaining CAC state schools might have a tough time finding a conference home in DIII. This could potentially be a pretty big domino effect. We'll see.

I think there are a few dominos that could fall. I am following a bunch of "what ifs" and "have you heards" and the CAC would be in trouble, but at the same time some creative things could take place. All this really means for me is this ... my off-season is going to be just as busy as last year's especially at the start. No break for the weary. LOL
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 13, 2018, 05:06:19 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 13, 2018, 04:58:25 PM
Quote from: sunny on March 13, 2018, 12:16:39 PM
It would be interesting. For a combination of reasons (cost, conference affiliation, gender balance), I could see field hockey and men's lacrosse getting the ax (perhaps others as well) - and that would be a real let-down in the latter's case after the program became pretty darned solid in such a short period of time.
While there is no DII team in Maryland with lacrosse (Bowie is the only one, doesn't offer it)... I would be pretty shocked if they cut lacrosse. DII is ripe for the taking in that sport, it needs more numbers, and Frostburg has had a long history. And cutting that sport in the state of Maryland... that, too, is a tough hill to climb. That could cause a revolt. Not that they wouldn't consider it, I just don't think knowing the school, state, etc. they would get very far. (You know lacrosse is the team sport of Maryland; name me the sport of Maryland [don't look it up!] and I'll give ya karma).

Crab shucking?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on March 13, 2018, 05:26:00 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 13, 2018, 05:06:19 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 13, 2018, 04:58:25 PM
Quote from: sunny on March 13, 2018, 12:16:39 PM
It would be interesting. For a combination of reasons (cost, conference affiliation, gender balance), I could see field hockey and men's lacrosse getting the ax (perhaps others as well) - and that would be a real let-down in the latter's case after the program became pretty darned solid in such a short period of time.
While there is no DII team in Maryland with lacrosse (Bowie is the only one, doesn't offer it)... I would be pretty shocked if they cut lacrosse. DII is ripe for the taking in that sport, it needs more numbers, and Frostburg has had a long history. And cutting that sport in the state of Maryland... that, too, is a tough hill to climb. That could cause a revolt. Not that they wouldn't consider it, I just don't think knowing the school, state, etc. they would get very far. (You know lacrosse is the team sport of Maryland; name me the sport of Maryland [don't look it up!] and I'll give ya karma).

Crab shucking?

"Crab shucking"? Would that be for Maryland style (steamed) or southern (boiled)? Really, we need to know.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 13, 2018, 05:38:21 PM
I dunno, my crab know-how is limited. Do you shuck crabs differently depending upon how you're going to cook them?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on March 13, 2018, 05:55:00 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 13, 2018, 04:58:25 PM
(You know lacrosse is the team sport of Maryland; name me the sport of Maryland [don't look it up!] and I'll give ya karma).

gonna toss out some guesses:

washing down Pit Beef with Natty Boh

calling strangers "hon"

going downyocean

accusing the NFL of fixing games against the Ravens
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 13, 2018, 06:07:01 PM
Boog's Barbeque eating contest?

Barry Levinson films quote-off?

Reciting the names of all of the state's peninsulas and panhandles?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: monsoon on March 13, 2018, 07:10:07 PM
Looked it up. Never would have guessed.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on March 13, 2018, 11:02:54 PM
Quote from: monsoon on March 13, 2018, 07:10:07 PM
Looked it up. Never would have guessed.
Had to look it up too... I wonder if any politicians ever partake in the state sport. The public might pay more attention to government happenings if they did
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on March 14, 2018, 07:21:54 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 13, 2018, 04:58:25 PMDII is ripe for the taking in that sport, it needs more numbers, and Frostburg has had a long history. And cutting that sport in the state of Maryland... that, too, is a tough hill to climb. That could cause a revolt. Not that they wouldn't consider it, I just don't think knowing the school, state, etc. they would get very far.

Frostburg's current incarnation of men's lacrosse was announced in 2009 and took the field in 2011. They previously had a team from 1970 to 78. I wouldn't call that a "long history." They have had women's lacrosse for quite a while. I don't think it'd be a popular decision, but as a conference orphan in Division II, a relatively expensive sport, and as the relative "new kid on the block" in terms of athletics*, if they were to cut sports in a move to DII, I'd think it'd be a prime candidate. Field hockey is probably even more likely, but they're not going to cut a women's sport without cutting a men's one.

Of course, perhaps they can go DII without cutting anything. Or maybe they don't go at all. All speculative at this point.

*One thing that men's lacrosse does have going for it is that alumni base from the 70s as well as the recent alums from the 2010s skew in the, shall we say, "giving" direction in terms of demographics. They may not have decades and decades of alums, but they may have some sway.

If conference/regional sport sponsorship wasn't a factor, maybe I'd speculate on baseball/softball. Fields are single-use and take up a lot of space and Frostburg's climate doesn't lend itself to a lot of early-season home games ... but that hasn't stopped their baseball team from finding success. Plus, the Mountain East sponsors both sports and baseball, for sure, has a strong alumni base.

Track/Cross Country? Fairly cost-effective sports once you have the facility. Tennis? Don't think there's a ton of cost savings there. Hard to come up with other candidates IF they had to cut.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 14, 2018, 02:08:47 PM
The answer for those who didn't look it up... jousting.

Rich history of the sport and such here in Maryland, believe it or not.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 14, 2018, 02:11:03 PM
Quote from: sunny on March 14, 2018, 07:21:54 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 13, 2018, 04:58:25 PMDII is ripe for the taking in that sport, it needs more numbers, and Frostburg has had a long history. And cutting that sport in the state of Maryland... that, too, is a tough hill to climb. That could cause a revolt. Not that they wouldn't consider it, I just don't think knowing the school, state, etc. they would get very far.

Frostburg's current incarnation of men's lacrosse was announced in 2009 and took the field in 2011. They previously had a team from 1970 to 78. I wouldn't call that a "long history." They have had women's lacrosse for quite a while. I don't think it'd be a popular decision, but as a conference orphan in Division II, a relatively expensive sport, and as the relative "new kid on the block" in terms of athletics*, if they were to cut sports in a move to DII, I'd think it'd be a prime candidate. Field hockey is probably even more likely, but they're not going to cut a women's sport without cutting a men's one.

Of course, perhaps they can go DII without cutting anything. Or maybe they don't go at all. All speculative at this point.

*One thing that men's lacrosse does have going for it is that alumni base from the 70s as well as the recent alums from the 2010s skew in the, shall we say, "giving" direction in terms of demographics. They may not have decades and decades of alums, but they may have some sway.

If conference/regional sport sponsorship wasn't a factor, maybe I'd speculate on baseball/softball. Fields are single-use and take up a lot of space and Frostburg's climate doesn't lend itself to a lot of early-season home games ... but that hasn't stopped their baseball team from finding success. Plus, the Mountain East sponsors both sports and baseball, for sure, has a strong alumni base.

Track/Cross Country? Fairly cost-effective sports once you have the facility. Tennis? Don't think there's a ton of cost savings there. Hard to come up with other candidates IF they had to cut.

Yeah - I was combining the two lacrosses for a general point, not specific.

And again, DII is ripe for the taking in lacrosse since it has such a small foothold. I also think for a Maryland school to drop it would be a tough sell. Imagine dropping hockey in Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota. That said, ice hockey doesn't even exist in DII which is another conversation altogether when it comes to schools transitioning up and down divisions as a result.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on March 14, 2018, 03:07:43 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 14, 2018, 02:11:03 PM
Quote from: sunny on March 14, 2018, 07:21:54 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 13, 2018, 04:58:25 PMDII is ripe for the taking in that sport, it needs more numbers, and Frostburg has had a long history. And cutting that sport in the state of Maryland... that, too, is a tough hill to climb. That could cause a revolt. Not that they wouldn't consider it, I just don't think knowing the school, state, etc. they would get very far.

Frostburg's current incarnation of men's lacrosse was announced in 2009 and took the field in 2011. They previously had a team from 1970 to 78. I wouldn't call that a "long history." They have had women's lacrosse for quite a while. I don't think it'd be a popular decision, but as a conference orphan in Division II, a relatively expensive sport, and as the relative "new kid on the block" in terms of athletics*, if they were to cut sports in a move to DII, I'd think it'd be a prime candidate. Field hockey is probably even more likely, but they're not going to cut a women's sport without cutting a men's one.

Of course, perhaps they can go DII without cutting anything. Or maybe they don't go at all. All speculative at this point.

*One thing that men's lacrosse does have going for it is that alumni base from the 70s as well as the recent alums from the 2010s skew in the, shall we say, "giving" direction in terms of demographics. They may not have decades and decades of alums, but they may have some sway.

If conference/regional sport sponsorship wasn't a factor, maybe I'd speculate on baseball/softball. Fields are single-use and take up a lot of space and Frostburg's climate doesn't lend itself to a lot of early-season home games ... but that hasn't stopped their baseball team from finding success. Plus, the Mountain East sponsors both sports and baseball, for sure, has a strong alumni base.

Track/Cross Country? Fairly cost-effective sports once you have the facility. Tennis? Don't think there's a ton of cost savings there. Hard to come up with other candidates IF they had to cut.

Yeah - I was combining the two lacrosses for a general point, not specific.

And again, DII is ripe for the taking in lacrosse since it has such a small foothold. I also think for a Maryland school to drop it would be a tough sell. Imagine dropping hockey in Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota. That said, ice hockey doesn't even exist in DII which is another conversation altogether when it comes to schools transitioning up and down divisions as a result.

I get it, though I had specifically brought up men's lacrosse (not women's lacrosse which I am assuming either that OR  field hockey - or both? - would need to continue in order to counter-balance the football scholarships ...). It's hard to find "easy cuts" for Frostburg (assuming there's no way they'd drop football) - which, if they are committed to maintaining 21 sports, may keep them away from Division II.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on March 15, 2018, 07:18:52 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 14, 2018, 02:08:47 PM
The answer for those who didn't look it up... jousting.

Rich history of the sport and such here in Maryland, believe it or not.

Jousting. Now that's a sport for intercollegiate competition.   :P
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 15, 2018, 09:49:26 PM
Joust was certainly a hot collegiate competition when I was in school. Whether it was intercollegiate or not, I couldn't say. (http://www.gotmedieval.com/2009/06/how-authentic-is-the-video-game-joust-video-game-week-day-1.html)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 15, 2018, 11:13:38 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 15, 2018, 09:49:26 PM
Joust was certainly a hot collegiate competition when I was in school. Whether it was intercollegiate or not, I couldn't say. (http://www.gotmedieval.com/2009/06/how-authentic-is-the-video-game-joust-video-game-week-day-1.html)
Jousting was one of the pledging rituals for my social club in college!  Wheelbarrows and boxing gloves on broomsticks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2018, 11:52:24 AM
An interesting article on the state of public regional colleges including examples that field Division III athletics.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Public-Regional-Colleges-Never/239939?cid=wcontentgrid_hp_1b
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 19, 2018, 11:54:32 AM
Quote from: WUPHF on March 19, 2018, 11:52:24 AM
An interesting article on the state of public regional colleges including examples that field Division III athletics.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Public-Regional-Colleges-Never/239939?cid=wcontentgrid_hp_1b

Behind the paywall...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on March 24, 2018, 05:06:44 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 15, 2018, 09:49:26 PM
Joust was certainly a hot collegiate competition when I was in school. Whether it was intercollegiate or not, I couldn't say. (http://www.gotmedieval.com/2009/06/how-authentic-is-the-video-game-joust-video-game-week-day-1.html)

I loved that game, but wow, what a money-suck that thing was.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on April 24, 2018, 11:39:13 AM
D3 considering mandatory graduation rate reporting:   http://www.ncaa.org/champion/diii-looks-requiring-schools-submit-student-athlete-grad-rates?sf187584447=1

QuoteRetention rates of football players and African-American student-athletes in Division III have lagged behind those of their counterparts for eight consecutive years, according to the division's voluntarily reported student-athlete graduation rate data (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/summary-division-iii-academic-success-rates). The trend suggests the division should take steps — such as offering best practices or crafting legislation — to help those groups.

But a key question hangs over any decision: Is that data comprehensive enough to inform policy decisions and best practices? Only about 40 percent of the membership submits student-athlete graduation metrics on an annual basis. To ensure it has a comprehensive understanding, the Division III Diversity and Inclusion Working Group has proposed the division adopt mandatory student-athlete graduation rate reporting for all schools — the type of  reporting already required in Divisions I and II.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: doolittledog on April 24, 2018, 02:07:20 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on April 24, 2018, 11:39:13 AM
D3 considering mandatory graduation rate reporting:   http://www.ncaa.org/champion/diii-looks-requiring-schools-submit-student-athlete-grad-rates?sf187584447=1

QuoteRetention rates of football players and African-American student-athletes in Division III have lagged behind those of their counterparts for eight consecutive years, according to the division's voluntarily reported student-athlete graduation rate data (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/summary-division-iii-academic-success-rates). The trend suggests the division should take steps — such as offering best practices or crafting legislation — to help those groups.

But a key question hangs over any decision: Is that data comprehensive enough to inform policy decisions and best practices? Only about 40 percent of the membership submits student-athlete graduation metrics on an annual basis. To ensure it has a comprehensive understanding, the Division III Diversity and Inclusion Working Group has proposed the division adopt mandatory student-athlete graduation rate reporting for all schools — the type of  reporting already required in Divisions I and II.

A problem with athlete graduation rates at D3 is many D3 schools bring in large recruiting classes.  Once many of these kids realize they aren't destined to be a star they quit.  Many of those kids then transfer to different schools.  I know in the IIAC many of the schools talk about bringing in a freshman class of 50-60 football players and if everything goes well you'll have 20 that are still playing by their senior year.  Of those 30-40 kids that no longer play I would bet at least half have transferred out to another school. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 24, 2018, 02:38:50 PM
Quote from: doolittledog on April 24, 2018, 02:07:20 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on April 24, 2018, 11:39:13 AM
D3 considering mandatory graduation rate reporting:   http://www.ncaa.org/champion/diii-looks-requiring-schools-submit-student-athlete-grad-rates?sf187584447=1

QuoteRetention rates of football players and African-American student-athletes in Division III have lagged behind those of their counterparts for eight consecutive years, according to the division's voluntarily reported student-athlete graduation rate data (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/summary-division-iii-academic-success-rates). The trend suggests the division should take steps — such as offering best practices or crafting legislation — to help those groups.

But a key question hangs over any decision: Is that data comprehensive enough to inform policy decisions and best practices? Only about 40 percent of the membership submits student-athlete graduation metrics on an annual basis. To ensure it has a comprehensive understanding, the Division III Diversity and Inclusion Working Group has proposed the division adopt mandatory student-athlete graduation rate reporting for all schools — the type of  reporting already required in Divisions I and II.

A problem with athlete graduation rates at D3 is many D3 schools bring in large recruiting classes.  Once many of these kids realize they aren't destined to be a star they quit.  Many of those kids then transfer to different schools.  I know in the IIAC many of the schools talk about bringing in a freshman class of 50-60 football players and if everything goes well you'll have 20 that are still playing by their senior year.  Of those 30-40 kids that no longer play I would bet at least half have transferred out to another school.
I believe that this is a misdirected effort. It is just as important to help the young student-athlete understand the gifts, talents, and desires that they have at 18 or 19 years of age.  When they finally realize that they are not going to be a starter on the athletic team, and the camaraderie of the team for the "hangers-on" is not worth the financial outlay, then it is time to move on.

Why is something as specific as a "Football Player" so critical?  Do we ask the same of any student who tries out for the lead role in the Fall Drama production, doesn't get the role, and then leaves school? If the kid does not want to remain in school to be a "stage hand" for 4 years, does that number show up as "retention failure" for the School of Fine Arts?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2018, 02:41:46 PM
Quote from: doolittledog on April 24, 2018, 02:07:20 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on April 24, 2018, 11:39:13 AM
D3 considering mandatory graduation rate reporting:   http://www.ncaa.org/champion/diii-looks-requiring-schools-submit-student-athlete-grad-rates?sf187584447=1

QuoteRetention rates of football players and African-American student-athletes in Division III have lagged behind those of their counterparts for eight consecutive years, according to the division's voluntarily reported student-athlete graduation rate data (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/summary-division-iii-academic-success-rates). The trend suggests the division should take steps — such as offering best practices or crafting legislation — to help those groups.

But a key question hangs over any decision: Is that data comprehensive enough to inform policy decisions and best practices? Only about 40 percent of the membership submits student-athlete graduation metrics on an annual basis. To ensure it has a comprehensive understanding, the Division III Diversity and Inclusion Working Group has proposed the division adopt mandatory student-athlete graduation rate reporting for all schools — the type of  reporting already required in Divisions I and II.

A problem with athlete graduation rates at D3 is many D3 schools bring in large recruiting classes.  Once many of these kids realize they aren't destined to be a star they quit.  Many of those kids then transfer to different schools.  I know in the IIAC many of the schools talk about bringing in a freshman class of 50-60 football players and if everything goes well you'll have 20 that are still playing by their senior year.  Of those 30-40 kids that no longer play I would bet at least half have transferred out to another school. 

Yes, exactly. Ascertaining D3 graduation-rate data has to be a headache for exactly that reason -- participation in sports is voluntary, which tends to create a lot of fluidity in D3 rosters. At tuition-driven schools (which make up a substantial number of D3 institutions), boosting enrollment through overrecruitment is more or less standard practice. It's especially egregious in football, given the numbers involved, but it exists in several other sports as well. I'm surprised that the article didn't even mention these aspects of D3 student-athlete data.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 24, 2018, 02:38:50 PM
I believe that this is a misdirected effort. It is just as important to help the young student-athlete understand the gifts, talents, and desires that they have at 18 or 19 years of age.  When they finally realize that they are not going to be a starter on the athletic team, and the camaraderie of the team for the "hangers-on" is not worth the financial outlay, then it is time to move on.

Why is something as specific as a "Football Player" so critical?  Do we ask the same of any student who tries out for the lead role in the Fall Drama production, doesn't get the role, and then leaves school? If the kid does not want to remain in school to be a "stage hand" for 4 years, does that number show up as "retention failure" for the School of Fine Arts?

Good points, Ralph.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on April 24, 2018, 04:44:43 PM
Some private D3 institutions, including one I'm fairly familiar with, deliberately take in freshmen with dubious academic backgrounds, many of whom will be gone by the second semester. And we know why: they (or their parents) pay money to stick around from September till December. Some, of course, happen to be athletes, including football players.

While I understand that many of these venues have increasing need for dollars, I also have some reservations about the ethics of accepting money from students when they are being treated as what might be called the academic equivalent of cannon fodder.

Do I have a solution to this situation? No, I don't, yet I'm convinced there has to be one.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 24, 2018, 05:00:40 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on April 24, 2018, 04:44:43 PM
Some private D3 institutions, including one I'm fairly familiar with, deliberately take in freshmen with dubious academic backgrounds, many of whom will be gone by the second semester. And we know why: they (or their parents) pay money to stick around from September till December. Some, of course, happen to be athletes, including football players.

While I understand that many of these venues have increasing need for dollars, I also have some reservations about the ethics of accepting money from students when they are being treated as what might be called the academic equivalent of cannon fodder.

Do I have a solution to this situation? No, I don't, yet I'm convinced there has to be one.

I would respond that the fiduciary obligation to that student and his/her parents from/by the college is to provide the remedial support, including assessment of academic skills which that student-athlete did not achieve, acquire, or develop, to succeed.  The coaching staffs at those colleges would be acting in the student/athlete's interest to confirm that the student/athlete is attending class, using college sponsored tutoring that is available to all students (no preferences) and striving to take advantage of these opportunities afforded in campus life. The college has given the student-athlete the chance to turn his/her life around or to reach goals that the nay-sayers do not believe can reached. It might even require diagnostic testing to see if there are any previously undetermined learning challenges in the student/athlete.

This may be an area for emphasis in a college that has a higher than average percentage of first generation attendees. 

That is a covenant relationship that a college may undertake in good faith. How many successful "saves" do you need to make that a worthy endeavor for the outreach of the institution?  Do you save 10%? 20%? If this challenge is laid out for the parents and the student/athlete at the beginning of the recruitment process, then I believe that it is a valid program.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on April 24, 2018, 06:20:30 PM
Ralph and Warren,
  Excellent points.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2018, 08:19:08 PM
That's why they're Hall of Famers. They're making yours truly look good. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on April 25, 2018, 03:39:48 PM
Aw shucks, Greg. I'm happy I could be of help to you.  ;D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 25, 2018, 07:48:30 PM
Of course, I meant "look good" in the all-Hall-of-Famers-are-obviously-smart sense. I wouldn't want that to be misinterpreted!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on May 08, 2018, 11:49:35 PM
This is kind of the opposite of what I experienced at my Alma Mater. When I did a check in 2006 or so, the student melt from the football players that didn't make it through the senior year wasn't that high.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 12, 2018, 08:26:17 PM
Coming soon to a collegiate athletic association near you...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5836021/Students-parents-demand-rule-change-trans-teen-wins-girls-state-championship.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 12, 2018, 09:57:25 PM
This is already a topic in the NCAA with rules in place to accommodate. 60 Minutes did a large expose on it in the last year or two.

Or are you referring to something more specific?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 13, 2018, 10:24:37 PM
Thank you. Specifically, the mother feels betrayed. The mother believes that her daughter was not dealt with fairly and that an injustice was done to her.  From the article,

QuoteThe teen's mother, Bianca Stanescu, told CT Post that there's no transgender competition when it comes to things like 'math and science and chorus' but with sports it's different.

'Sports are set up for fairness,' she said. 'Biologically male and female are different, adding that  'the great majority is being sacrificed for the minority'.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 14, 2018, 04:12:55 PM
She can probably feel more assured by the NCAA procedures in place. As I remember what I learned, it seems the play fields are pretty equal.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: justafan12 on June 22, 2018, 01:34:36 PM
NCAA increased membership fees for all D3 school and conferences I believe started next year.  Here is an article on how they proposed to spend the additional $500,000. Not how I would have spent it.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-committee-proposes-uses-new-revenue?sf192238873=1
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on June 23, 2018, 12:45:23 PM
Quote from: justafan12 on June 22, 2018, 01:34:36 PM
NCAA increased membership fees for all D3 school and conferences I believe started next year.  Here is an article on how they proposed to spend the additional $500,000. Not how I would have spent it.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-committee-proposes-uses-new-revenue?sf192238873=1

The LGBTQ issue is obviously a hot topic in sports today, see the above dilemma in the CT HS track championships.  It seems that the NCAA has already addressed the issue in its new rules and regulations, now the move is to stay ahead of it from a public relations standpoint. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 25, 2018, 09:02:23 AM
From the NCAA story quoted above:

Quote[...] roughly $1.5 million in supplemental spending already has been dedicated to championships enhancements, including increased travel party sizes and reimbursement for local ground transportation when a team flies to the competition site. Those expenses are part of the division's effort to draw down the current surplus in excess of its mandated reserve.

I respectfully submit that if the AA needs to "draw down the current surplus in excess of its mandated reserve" that they could instead change the "you gotta travel even if you're the best team in the country to save travel dollars" mandate.   Would take care of that money in a hurry but at least for a short time it would even things up for all teams, not just those located where D3 schools are tightly packed. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 25, 2018, 10:59:00 AM
Remember... "AA" is Division III schools. Talk to the members. Indy doesn't make these decisions on their own.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 25, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 25, 2018, 10:59:00 AM
Remember... "AA" is Division III schools. Talk to the members. Indy doesn't make these decisions on their own.

Since roughly 400 of the 451 schools in Division III are almost never impacted by this, the chance of the "members" caring about this is about the same as it snowing in South Texas in August.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 25, 2018, 11:41:13 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 25, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 25, 2018, 10:59:00 AM
Remember... "AA" is Division III schools. Talk to the members. Indy doesn't make these decisions on their own.

Since roughly 400 of the 451 schools in Division III are almost never impacted by this, the chance of the "members" caring about this is about the same as it snowing in South Texas in August.

I don't disagree, but I have also talked to many members of Division III who understand how it impacts others or could impact themselves. They are most aware of the entire picture than many realize.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: justafan12 on June 27, 2018, 12:37:00 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 25, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 25, 2018, 10:59:00 AM
Remember... "AA" is Division III schools. Talk to the members. Indy doesn't make these decisions on their own.

Since roughly 400 of the 451 schools in Division III are almost never impacted by this, the chance of the "members" caring about this is about the same as it snowing in South Texas in August.
IMO its the schools 38 schools located in Texas, Louisiana, California, Oregon and Washington that get killed on the travel issue.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 27, 2018, 01:27:09 PM
Quote from: justafan12 on June 27, 2018, 12:37:00 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 25, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 25, 2018, 10:59:00 AM
Remember... "AA" is Division III schools. Talk to the members. Indy doesn't make these decisions on their own.

Since roughly 400 of the 451 schools in Division III are almost never impacted by this, the chance of the "members" caring about this is about the same as it snowing in South Texas in August.
IMO its the schools 38 schools located in Texas, Louisiana, California, Oregon and Washington that get killed on the travel issue.

Yes... in some sports they do. Not much we can do about geography and money at this time. I have been on record that I wish(ed) the extra money was spent on the championships to allow more flexibility and travel when necessary (not just allow anything, though).

I have already said publicly I've been disappointed in how the "extra" money has been handled so far. There was one thinking of returning the money since it didn't appear to be needed any more. I felt that worst case scenario, the money should be put in a rainy-day fund for future needs (cost overtures, increased championship costs, etc.). Now they have decided to start and fund new programs.

The last part is where I am torn. The reason DIII upped how much money it was paying in dues, and that the rest of the division agreed not to take it's percentage, was that DIII was the only division running at a deficit especially because of it's championships. The division raised it's dues and I was pleased it had handled the problem itself to start.

Where I am torn is how the money is to be spent. It isn't being put in a rainy day fund. It isn't being used for championships which saw the biggest hit when DIII was in such a deficit. Instead, new programs are being funded. The money is going to non-championship items (governmental for lack of a better description). There is, once again, a thinking in the division that funding isn't an issue. There is a false sense of thinking that the DI money will always be there, despite the fact there are clear signs the money won't always be there at the same levels and recent contracts have had decreasing values over the length of the contracts, not increasing (as was the case about 5-10 years ago).

Where I am torn is that the programs are worthy and certainly needed of attention. Of course I want to see further training for athletic trainers and officials. Electronic medical record software to keep track of injuries across the NCAA is certainly understandable. I will certainly would not want to be against LGBTQ initiatives. I will also not stand in the way of improving opportunities for minorities and women in coaching - not by a long shot. Helping more SAAC members be involved at the NCAA level is a wonderful idea.

Now, I know the press release says $1.5m has gone to improving championships, but that isn't coming from the added finances by raised dues best I can tell. That is using money that the new D1 contracts have allowed. I just worry that money isn't always going to be coming in at it's current levels, as we have seen in the past when we had a fiscal budget for the division of about $5-10m LESS.

I just hope the division isn't losing focus of the reason for the increase in the first place... nor the realization that championships are growing especially in large sports (ice hockey, lacrosse, etc.) and not planning for the future or maybe even saving money is only going to send us down the same trap as in the past.

Just my two cents.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on June 27, 2018, 01:50:25 PM
Well said, Dave.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 05, 2018, 02:42:48 PM
So I got a chance to chat with Dan Dutcher, VP for DIII, at the recent CoSIDA (and NACDA) Convention in DC. I consider Dan a friend, so usually we meet just to catch up, but I always try and talk a little "shop" since the chances to see each other face to face are so minimum.

Dan assured me the financial situation is being handled far better than in the past. They actually have many years down the road budgeted out including the rest of the current TV deals and into the next set of TV deals. He says the reserve is at an all-time high (or there abouts) and while that will go down (the amount in the reserve), it won't be lower than $2mil at it's lowest point. Soon there after, it is budgeted to be over $10mil just in reserves.

He understood how the spending of the extra money comes across from the outside, but assured me that the past is very much on everyone's mind and thus why the reserve is being handled the way it is and the fact they have budgets for many years ahead to keep track of the spending.

He also says the Division continues to support the 75/25 percentage use of the money (75% to championships, 25% to governance). It has the same support it did five years ago.

I will try and maybe get into more detail with him on a future podcast, but I left out conversation feeling much better about the financial situation with DIII - at least to the fact that money is being allocated appropriately and the shortfalls of the past are very much on the mind of the division.

We can talk about getting more flexibility with travel another time. Dan wishes more could be done, too. That topic is very much preaching to the choir with him. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on July 13, 2018, 04:19:20 PM
Benedictine officially to Division

http://glvcsports.com/news/2018/7/13/general-benedictine-admitted-to-ncaa-division-ii-process-set-to-join-glvc.aspx
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 13, 2018, 04:20:03 PM
Yep... discussing it in another page here in General: http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8693.msg1873696#msg1873696
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Warren Thompson on July 13, 2018, 06:02:07 PM
What is the gain for a venue to jump down from D3 to D2? Wasn't the McMurry experience warning enough for rational people? As well, consider that Westminster (PA) went from NAIA 2 to NCAA 2 and then realized that NCAA 3 was the best fit.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 13, 2018, 08:43:32 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on July 13, 2018, 06:02:07 PM
What is the gain for a venue to jump down from D3 to D2? Wasn't the McMurry experience warning enough for rational people? As well, consider that Westminster (PA) went from NAIA 2 to NCAA 2 and then realized that NCAA 3 was the best fit.

I think there are parts of the country where Division II teams don't have to travel as much as Division III teams, and that's part of it. I can concede that that is a reasonable rationale for choosing D-II. Texas and the Southeast qualify in that regard, I believe. I believe UT-Tyler will be in a more compact conference in the Gulf South than in the American Southwest.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 13, 2018, 10:27:18 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 13, 2018, 08:43:32 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on July 13, 2018, 06:02:07 PM
What is the gain for a venue to jump down from D3 to D2? Wasn't the McMurry experience warning enough for rational people? As well, consider that Westminster (PA) went from NAIA 2 to NCAA 2 and then realized that NCAA 3 was the best fit.

I think there are parts of the country where Division II teams don't have to travel as much as Division III teams, and that's part of it. I can concede that that is a reasonable rationale for choosing D-II. Texas and the Southeast qualify in that regard, I believe. I believe UT-Tyler will be in a more compact conference in the Gulf South than in the American Southwest.
I was surprised that UTT went with the Gulf South as opposed to the Lone Star Conference.

http://www.lonestarconference.org/sports/2009/12/16/information_history_index.aspx?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on July 15, 2018, 02:10:39 PM
Quote from: Warren Thompson on July 13, 2018, 06:02:07 PM
What is the gain for a venue to jump down from D3 to D2? Wasn't the McMurry experience warning enough for rational people? As well, consider that Westminster (PA) went from NAIA 2 to NCAA 2 and then realized that NCAA 3 was the best fit.

Many schools can also actually end up offering less financial aid as a whole. Rather than giving out $20K in academic money to a student-athlete, they might be able to give away $8K of athletics money instead and still fill their teams. Financially sound or not, we have seen the proof for years that many student-athletes choose a smaller athletic scholarship over a larger academic package, because the label of "scholarship athlete" proves strong. So in some specific cases moving to D2 can be a money saver.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 15, 2018, 02:31:00 PM
I'm not sure I agree with that, JustBill. I have heard of plenty of SAs who may pick the school with more academic money option instead. Hear it often, actually. Some just understand that there is more to consider, especially after college, than getting an "athletic scholarship."

I am not disagreeing it doesn't happen. I know of my fair share of stories of those who think whatever they get ... "athletic scholarship" has some meaning behind it over academic money. It happens. I know that. I just feel I've heard just as many stories, obviously in DIII, where the SA chose the school for the academic help over the athletic numbers (sometimes the academic money gets them into the school they wanted to really go to versus just having some kind of schooling paid for in general).

I always heed the words Dan Dutcher shared with me once ... there are 22.5-times more money in academic scholarships in the NCAA (the entire NCAA) than there is in athletic scholarships.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on July 15, 2018, 03:55:33 PM
Well neither of us said it only happens one way or the other, so the only thing we're debating is how much it happens. I didn't really try to quantify it, other than saying "many" and you're going the other way with "plenty". We're not exactly breaking down data here. I'm going to say we can both be right, since we're both being pretty inexact. In this case, some take the academic money, some take the athletic money. I think that's fair (although not really breaking news).

I can't quantify any of it, but I know that a number of D-III coaches lament the kids who could have had a better package at a D-III school, but opted for the D-II or D-I school in part for the status of being a scholarship athlete. I'm certain nearly every D-III coach in the country can relate having that experience at some point.

I do know that Benedictine in particular believes they will actually end up distributing less financial aid in total with this move. Part of that is because BU has typically given out a ton of financial aid relative to their peers, and they are going through a process to reign that in. That's a much bigger process than moving to D-II, but the move to D-II is a small part of that larger restructuring of financial aid.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 15, 2018, 07:51:16 PM
I can see where Dave would have that perspective. Neither of us really talks to D-II players. We talk to the D-III people, and that's why we hear those kinds of stories.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 15, 2018, 09:37:51 PM
I will say, I hear in NJ the argument they lose players to DII all of the time because of "athletic scholarships." It is a pretty common conversation I have with coaches and others in New Jersey. That said, I hear the opposite more often the rest of the country.

And yeah... I don't talk to many in DII... I can only hold on to so much content. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on July 16, 2018, 08:44:05 AM
There's also the consideration that there are SAs who will qualify for an athletic scholarship who would not qualify for an academic scholarship.   Those students likely would not have gone to a D3 in the first place due to out-of-pocket cost [don't forget more D2s are public, so in-state tuition is also lower] or failure to meet admission standards. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 16, 2018, 11:36:47 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 16, 2018, 08:44:05 AM
There's also the consideration that there are SAs who will qualify for an athletic scholarship who would not qualify for an academic scholarship.   Those students likely would not have gone to a D3 in the first place due to out-of-pocket cost [don't forget more D2s are public, so in-state tuition is also lower] or failure to meet admission standards.
Part of the thinking for McMurry to go D-2 was that it would carve a niche as the only fottball-playing private D-2 in the state. McMurry got some outstanding student athletes, especially female, who were getting a full academic ride on their athletic scholarship and playing sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on July 16, 2018, 11:45:06 AM
Coming from PA, I have the DII v DIII debate on a regular basis.  I have always contended that if you can meet the academic standards of a "better" D3 school, then the money that most athletes would receive from a DIII school would offset the scholarship money (especially a partial scholarship) provided by most  DII schools. That being said,  I just a discussion with a dad of twin female soccer players.  His girls were set to go to a school in the Centennial Conference, but then received a partial scholarship from a DII program.  The difference in tuition between a deep discount (over 50%) from the Centennial school was still $10,000 more than the partial scholarship from the DII school.   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on July 16, 2018, 12:24:43 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 15, 2018, 09:37:51 PM
I will say, I hear in NJ the argument they lose players to DII all of the time because of "athletic scholarships." It is a pretty common conversation I have with coaches and others in New Jersey. That said, I hear the opposite more often the rest of the country.

Talk to the MIAA folks. They complain about it all the time in America's High-Five.

You guys are focusing upon D2 as to whether or not the allure of an athletic scholarship represents a recruiting threat to D3 teams, but let's not forget that the issue also holds true with the NAIA as the threat -- even though partial scholies in the NAIA can be quite miniscule. I've heard numerous comments from D3 coaches in Chicagoland over the years that recruiting competition from NAIA was a real thing. I think that it's even worse in Indiana and Michigan. It should be pointed out, though, that NAIA schools tend to be cheaper in terms of tuition, anyway.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 17, 2018, 07:58:24 AM

You also have the public-private differences, too.  Public schools in some states don't have any leeway whatsoever when it comes to academic scholarships - students qualify on a chart, based on their grades and test scores and that's what they get anywhere they go - sometimes athletic scholarships are the only thing some schools have over others.  I don't know which states in particular this applies to (I know it's true in NJ, but they don't have any state d2s, so the conversation is moot there), but it is a real issue they have to consider some places.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on July 17, 2018, 02:59:49 PM
At CWU all students can apply for academic scholarships (and our department has teamed with Financial Aid to streamline the flow of scholarship application and approval based on criteria that usually spurs from the wishes of the donor - A Business Major with over a 3.0 who is from Clark or Lewis County, for example). I'm surprised they don't have that option in NJ. Donors can't endow scholarships at the NJ publics?

We have athletes definitely taking a partial athletics scholarship, a tuition waiver, and another scholarship to pay for college - especially for soccer, track, baseball, and softball.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 18, 2018, 09:48:35 AM
Quote from: smedindy on July 17, 2018, 02:59:49 PM
At CWU all students can apply for academic scholarships (and our department has teamed with Financial Aid to streamline the flow of scholarship application and approval based on criteria that usually spurs from the wishes of the donor - A Business Major with over a 3.0 who is from Clark or Lewis County, for example). I'm surprised they don't have that option in NJ. Donors can't endow scholarships at the NJ publics?

We have athletes definitely taking a partial athletics scholarship, a tuition waiver, and another scholarship to pay for college - especially for soccer, track, baseball, and softball.

They can apply for individual endowed scholarships, but the school are limited to the criteria of those scholarships.  Privates have a lot more leeway with how they distribute aid and it's tougher to be competitive.  For NJ, the merit aid is the same across the board, so I suppose the coaches could help kids apply for individual scholarships, but that's a lot of work without always a ton of payoff.  I was just saying, it's easier for a private school to offer an amount with the intention of beating out a rival, if they really want a kid.  Private schools have a little less leeway on that front.

D3 has more restrictions, obviously, but private schools can still move a little easier (or at least they have the ability to do so, pending institutional policies) than public schools do.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: justafan12 on July 18, 2018, 02:28:16 PM
I am sure there is an NCAA rule on this but what would prevent a private D3 donor was setting up a scholarship to be given to a worthwhile athlete with a certain major with a minimum GPA.  Just curious.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on July 18, 2018, 04:04:19 PM
No scholarships with an athletics component, period.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: justafan12 on July 18, 2018, 05:15:39 PM
Quote from: smedindy on July 18, 2018, 04:04:19 PM
No scholarships with an athletics component, period.
I am sure D3s have some form of compliance or audit check on how they awarded private scholarships based on various factors such as race, gender, etc.  I just wonder if there is a system in place at most D3s to check to see if a high number of SA were receiving financial aid? Does the athletic department at D3 schools have to report how much financial aid their SA receive?

Just not that familiar with this and it seems like a wealthy donor and athletic department could find a way around the system to give athletic money to SA.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on July 18, 2018, 06:39:20 PM
An organization (like a Kiwanis club or a Rotary club) can offer scholarships with an athletic component, that can go to a Division III athlete. The stipulations are the organization cannot designate or limit what school that student can attend, and there can be no direct connection between the organization (particularly those making the scholarship decisions) and the school.

So in your example, a wealthy donor couldn't set up that scholarship because there would be a designation that the player attend the school of the donor's preference. And there would be an established relationship between the donor and the school.

D-III schools do attempt to collect information about all financial aid their students receive and generally do a good job. That's one reason colleges request organizations send scholarship checks directly to them rather than handing them to the students. But yes, things can slip through the cracks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 20, 2018, 01:02:59 PM
Quote from: justafan12 on July 18, 2018, 05:15:39 PM
Quote from: smedindy on July 18, 2018, 04:04:19 PM
No scholarships with an athletics component, period.
I am sure D3s have some form of compliance or audit check on how they awarded private scholarships based on various factors such as race, gender, etc.  I just wonder if there is a system in place at most D3s to check to see if a high number of SA were receiving financial aid? Does the athletic department at D3 schools have to report how much financial aid their SA receive?

Just not that familiar with this and it seems like a wealthy donor and athletic department could find a way around the system to give athletic money to SA.

We've already had schools get in trouble with this... especially schools with ice hockey who set up international scholarships (in those cases it was the percentage was too high). But DIIIs have gotten in trouble with scholarships set up that ended up being informally designated for athletes. Schools are far more aware of these rules and avoid it altogether if they can.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 23, 2018, 07:02:15 AM

It's a basic percentage of variance - not sure offhand what the number is - something like there can't be more than a 3% variance between the SA population and the general population when it comes to merit-based aid.  I'm presuming they have need standards that they can show are universal when awarding need-based scholarships.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on July 23, 2018, 09:13:01 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 23, 2018, 07:02:15 AM

It's a basic percentage of variance - not sure offhand what the number is - something like there can't be more than a 3% variance between the SA population and the general population when it comes to merit-based aid.  I'm presuming they have need standards that they can show are universal when awarding need-based scholarships.

I believe that the official DIII NCAA rule is that there can be no variance between the amount of aid offered to a SA when compared to the general population of the school.  The 3% is probably a statistical number (standard deviation?)  rather than a firm percentage
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 23, 2018, 02:03:48 PM
It's 4% but yes. And you can't give the SA population more than 4% more ... but you can definitely give them less and I'm sure that's the case at schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on July 23, 2018, 06:03:34 PM
Does that open up possibilities, that the top athlete's, may get more? Where the guys on the bottom of the roster are paying full freight, for the opportunity? That would could be another reason for large rosters.
I do not believe this is happening. It is just a thought I always had. I would think there are controls, so this would not happen.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on July 23, 2018, 10:00:18 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on July 23, 2018, 06:03:34 PM
Does that open up possibilities, that the top athlete's, may get more? Where the guys on the bottom of the roster are paying full freight, for the opportunity? That would could be another reason for large rosters.
I do not believe this is happening. It is just a thought I always had. I would think there are controls, so this would not happen.

I've long wondered the same thing.  If the emphasis is just on average scholarship money, to coaches the SAs are not 'average'.  Are the checks in place to scrutinize the financials enough that 'stars'  can't effectively get athletic scholies, compensated by 'scrubs' getting much less?

Unless the monitors are 'deep diving' to check FA, while I think MOST D3 schools would be on the up-and-up, these sorts of shenanigans could easily slip through if auditors are not extremely vigilant.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Just Bill on July 24, 2018, 10:35:08 AM
If you really want to sniff out the schools playing in the gray areas, you need to look at how often they "re-evaluate" their financial aid package for a potential student-athlete. The way it should work is School A and School B each sends the S-A their financial package, and then the S-A can compare and make a decision.

But many schools, perhaps at the prompting of coaches, re-evaluate a student's financial aid package and suddenly come up with additional money. Where did the extra money come from and why didn't it show up in the initial financial aid package? Good question. The schools who practice this will say, they were able to give additional money because other students turned down their own aid packages in order to attend elsewhere. And that's probably true to some extent. But it does raise red flags when School A is able to raise their financial package JUST higher than School B, or when a single S-A gets re-evaluated four or fives times, increasing the package each time.

If coaches are prompting the financial aid office for more money, that's a violation. If coaches are extracting the financial aid details of a competing offer out of a recruit and sharing that information with their financial aid office, that's a violation (or at the very least unethical and shady.) If schools are routinely re-evaluating financial aid offers for S-As but not for the general student body, that's a violation.

But these type of potential violations are entirely internal and almost impossible to make a complaint on or prove. Plus, it's in the purview of the financial aid office, which should be educated and compliant with NCAA rules, but aren't always.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on July 24, 2018, 11:37:45 AM
I'll add that while everything above is true, a coach can absolutely have star players with a lower discount rate than their end-of-bench kids and still be within the rules, provided they are smart with how/who they recruit. Have a lot of high-need or top academic scholarship qualifiers who are stud athletes on your radar? Fill out your second tier athletes with kids who are non-need/less-or-no academic merit (i.e. full-pay or close to it) kids. Your admissions and financial aid people will be happy with that. That's exactly how they run their institution in general and as long as you're not bending/breaking aid rules on a specific basis as mentioned above, this is perfectly fine.

I'd actually suspect that on many (if not most) rosters of expensive schools, the lower-tier athletes are paying, on average, more to attend (though probably not a tremendous gap and I am speaking completely in averages, not a case-by-case for each individual kid) ... and that that would be the case even WITHOUT any shenanigans ... simply because the schools themselves are going to want coaches to entertain/recruit potential full-pay kids, even if they'll be benchwarmers; a benchwarmer with a huge discount rate (setting aside any other factors) isn't necessarily a priority to the admissions office or the coach.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 24, 2018, 01:44:02 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on July 24, 2018, 10:35:08 AM
If you really want to sniff out the schools playing in the gray areas, you need to look at how often they "re-evaluate" their financial aid package for a potential student-athlete. The way it should work is School A and School B each sends the S-A their financial package, and then the S-A can compare and make a decision.

But many schools, perhaps at the prompting of coaches, re-evaluate a student's financial aid package and suddenly come up with additional money. Where did the extra money come from and why didn't it show up in the initial financial aid package? Good question. The schools who practice this will say, they were able to give additional money because other students turned down their own aid packages in order to attend elsewhere. And that's probably true to some extent. But it does raise red flags when School A is able to raise their financial package JUST higher than School B, or when a single S-A gets re-evaluated four or fives times, increasing the package each time.

If coaches are prompting the financial aid office for more money, that's a violation. If coaches are extracting the financial aid details of a competing offer out of a recruit and sharing that information with their financial aid office, that's a violation (or at the very least unethical and shady.) If schools are routinely re-evaluating financial aid offers for S-As but not for the general student body, that's a violation.

But these type of potential violations are entirely internal and almost impossible to make a complaint on or prove. Plus, it's in the purview of the financial aid office, which should be educated and compliant with NCAA rules, but aren't always.

To be fair, this happens across the campus and not just in athletic departments.  Lots of professors ask for financial aid re-evaluations for kids they're hoping to get into their programs.  It may be less prevalent, but at schools with financial aid flexibility, it's not out of the question for all students (which is probably all the NCAA needs to see).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 13, 2019, 11:24:19 AM
DIII Championships Committee supports regional realignment

(Edit:  fixed URL)

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-championships-committee-supports-regional-realignment

Besides aligning schools to reflect growth and changes in participation, this proposal could also increase the number of regions in some sports, reducing the number of schools in a region:

QuoteThe new model seeks to have roughly 40 teams in each region. Sports that have 40-149 sponsors would have two regions; sports sponsored by 150-374 schools would have five to eight regions; and sports with 375 or more sponsors would have nine to 10 regions. In tennis, additional review will take place to determine the appropriate number of regions given that selections for the individual portion of the tournament are dependent on the alignment.

In most instances, the total number of regions in each sport would increase by two, three or four. The changes will require that some national committees expand to account for new regional representatives on those committees. Also, some conferences would be moved from their current regions.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2019, 11:37:41 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 13, 2019, 11:24:19 AM
DIII Championships Committee supports regional realignment

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-championships-committee-supports-
regional-realignment

Besides aligning schools to reflect growth and changes in participation, this proposal could also increase the number of regions in some sports, reducing the number of schools in a region:

QuoteThe new model seeks to have roughly 40 teams in each region. Sports that have 40-149 sponsors would have two regions; sports sponsored by 150-374 schools would have five to eight regions; and sports with 375 or more sponsors would have nine to 10 regions. In tennis, additional review will take place to determine the appropriate number of regions given that selections for the individual portion of the tournament are dependent on the alignment.

In most instances, the total number of regions in each sport would increase by two, three or four. The changes will require that some national committees expand to account for new regional representatives on those committees. Also, some conferences would be moved from their current regions.
My goodness, maybe 6 regions for footbal for ~ 250 schools? 9 or 10 for baseball, with more 390 schools playing baseball?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on February 13, 2019, 11:53:12 AM
let's start with more than 2 regions for men's lacrosse and work up from there
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 13, 2019, 12:29:24 PM
Quote from: Caz Bombers on February 13, 2019, 11:53:12 AM
let's start with more than 2 regions for men's lacrosse and work up from there

The link was broken; if you'd been able to read the article, you would have seen this:

QuoteThe Championships Committee approved some requests for regional realignment that will go into effect early. Men's lacrosse realignment (expanding from two regions to five) and women's lacrosse realignment (expanding from five regions to seven) will be effective in the coming academic year. And women's golf will maintain its current five regions, but will shift conferences within those regions to ensure they are better balanced.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on February 13, 2019, 01:02:22 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 13, 2019, 12:29:24 PM
Quote from: Caz Bombers on February 13, 2019, 11:53:12 AM
let's start with more than 2 regions for men's lacrosse and work up from there

The link was broken; if you'd been able to read the article, you would have seen this:

QuoteThe Championships Committee approved some requests for regional realignment that will go into effect early. Men's lacrosse realignment (expanding from two regions to five) and women's lacrosse realignment (expanding from five regions to seven) will be effective in the coming academic year. And women's golf will maintain its current five regions, but will shift conferences within those regions to ensure they are better balanced.

well that is good news then. And then dividing up football a little more as others have stated would also be a good idea.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: justafan12 on February 13, 2019, 01:06:21 PM
Cut out all "regions" and pick the best teams!! 

Yes, I know that will never happen but that's the way it should be, IMO.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 13, 2019, 02:02:26 PM
Quote from: justafan12 on February 13, 2019, 01:06:21 PM
Cut out all "regions" and pick the best teams!! 

Yes, I know that will never happen but that's the way it should be, IMO.
Respectfully, the regions are a way for the NCAA to decide who the best teams.

They are actually trying to allocate the work load of who the best teams are when very few people know all 250 football teams or 410 basketball teams or 390 baseball teams.

Please follow the Pool C discussions. The ardent fans in the sport can get down to the last 8 - 10 teams who might be on the table when the last 2-3 picks for Pool C are made.  There is only squabbling about the last 2-3 teams being considered.

Most of us are very confident that rarely has a team who could have won the National Championship been left off the table. The closest instance that I can recall is UT-Tyler (arguably the last Pool C bid in 2018) winning the national championship in baseball.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2019, 03:29:43 PM
Yeah ... regions exist even in DI, by the way.

Men's Lacrosse will move to five regions as soon as next academic year.

Football will be moving to six regions from what I am told.

I like this plan. I think it makes a lot of sense and puts a benchmark in place for growing (or even shrinking) sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on February 13, 2019, 08:40:58 PM
Quote from: justafan12 on February 13, 2019, 01:06:21 PM
Cut out all "regions" and pick the best teams!! 

Yes, I know that will never happen but that's the way it should be, IMO.
All teams get a chance at the playoffs in D3.
We know some leagues are much stronger.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on February 14, 2019, 08:03:45 AM
Am I correct that the main reason to add more regions is to allow more regional committees to specialize in fewer teams, to ascertain appropriate regional rankings?  This would, in theory, allow for more accurate ranking of teams.  All of this, so the pool C teams (for football in 2019 there will be 5) selections will be more fair?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on February 14, 2019, 08:56:34 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on February 14, 2019, 08:03:45 AM
Am I correct that the main reason to add more regions is to allow more regional committees to specialize in fewer teams, to ascertain appropriate regional rankings?  This would, in theory, allow for more accurate ranking of teams.  All of this, so the pool C teams (for football in 2019 there will be 5) selections will be more fair?

The other issue is that the number of teams ranked in a region is tied to the number of teams in the region. So if one conference in a large region is especially strong, there is a self-propagating system that results where four, five, six, even seven teams from the same conference get regionally ranked which automatically increases those teams' resumes, which in turn improves their regional rankings, etc.

The other reason having a lot of teams ranked in the same region is problematic is that there is no difference in criteria between playing all "top seven" regionally-ranked teams and all "second seven" regionally-ranked teams, for example. Yes, that difference is probably going to manifest among other criteria (SOS, for example) but in terms of "record v. regionally ranked opponents," there is no distinction.

Finally, the two regions in men's lacrosse have been especially egregious. While it's true that in a new alignment that some regions will be clearly much shallower than others, it's rather unreasonable to expect one of the best teams from the midwest in men's lacrosse to fill up their non-conference schedules with teams on the east coast in order to have games against regionally-ranked teams when there are likely two to three other entire conferences near them that don't require an overnight trip in order to play games. Unless you are TRULY geographically isolated (Colorado College) in your sport, you should be able to play games against regionally-ranked teams without having to incur crazy travel expenses or beg teams to do the same in order to come play you.

And that is sort of the point of regions in the first place. Ensuring that you have the chance to play "good teams" that will help your resume without being required to spend a lot of money to do so (again, unless you are truly geographically isolated).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 15, 2019, 08:34:27 AM

To be clear, the criteria is "results vs regionally ranked opponents."  The committees can and do look at who those are - they can judge that a close loss to a #1 team is better than a close win over a #9, for example.  They can see someone who's played all top ranked teams and another who's played lower ranked opponents.  The "results" part of the criteria is broad and used extensively.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: justafan12 on February 15, 2019, 01:16:08 PM
My reply to simply picking the best teams comes from a softball background in D3.  No real knowledge from other sports.

With a regional based approach, how does a #6 team in a West region compare to a #3 team in the Midwest region?  My best example is Linfield in 2017 was 32-10 and did not make the NCAA field.  With their region (West) being only 4 conferences and 34 teams do you give that region 6 or 7 teams out of a field of 62 vs. the Northeast or New England region with 61 teams each?  NCAA said no but I personally think Linfield would have beat most of the at large teams that were selected.

Also, with a regional approach, you could have 2 or 3 very good teams playing each other in a regional while other average teams could all be grouped in regional.   My best evidence of this is that from 2010 - 2017 the D3 softball WS had 17 run rule (or mercy rule) games.  That is a lot of one sided games for an event that is supposed to be reflective of the best.  If you draw up a bracket correctly, with a ranking of teams, I highly doubt that would happen. 

But I guess the big question is how do you compare almost 400 teams from across the US?  Currently, as I understand it, the NCAA softball committee conducts 2 conference calls to determine teams and regionals.  One call is one week prior to the selection and another on the day of selection.  That is not much time to evaluate and make an accurate selection.  Why not use the services of the NFCA who does a weekly poll? It may not be the most accurate but it is a tool that can be used.  As I understand it the NCAA gives no validity to the NFCA poll.

I am sure all other sports have some organization that ranks teams.  Why not use their services again as a tool to help get the best teams.  I just think that a National Championship should not be based on someone's zip code.


Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on February 15, 2019, 05:12:45 PM
the NFCA poll, at all levels but especially in D3, should be thrown in a lake. It's only 8 voting coaches who clearly don't keep up with what's going on (nor should they be expected to, frankly, given their jobs) who just pick teams they've heard of or who their friends coach.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on February 15, 2019, 06:53:26 PM
D3 is about access. With so many schools with different missions. You want to raise the Spectre of another D3 split, and a new D4, then just start selecting based on the eye test.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 17, 2019, 05:09:48 PM
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=n39hj/y3zd18adjie55k0v.jpg)

It is now or never.

The last week of the Division III basketball regular season is here. Conferences will decide who will earn automatic bids to the NCAA Tournaments and teams try and position themselves for at-large bids, hosting opportunities, and bracketing considerations.

For teams who have been faltering, this is the last chance to right the ship. For programs which have underachieved, this is the last opportunity to live up to expectations. And of course for those with Cinderella dreams, this is the chance to try on the glass slipper.

Sunday's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) will cover it all in a special, extended, episode which for the first time (outside of Marathon programming) will feature a guest from each of the eight regions. We will also discuss which teams may be on the bubble, who has most likely secured at-large bid, and which teams need to win the AQs. Plus, we talk about how regions as we know it now could very well change in the future.

Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Sunday's show will hit the air at 6:00 p.m. ET. It can be watched live right here: http://bit.ly/2EeG5ZE (and simulcast on Facebook Live and Periscope).

If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options below.

Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
- Katherine Bixby, Johns Hopkins women's coach
- Jonathan Crosthwaite, Occidental men's junior
- Marc Brown, NJCU men's coach
- Justin LeBlanc, Millsaps women's coach
- Jamie Seward, SUNY New Paltz women's coach
- Marcos Echevarria, No. 17 Nichols men's senior
- Herman Carmichael, La Roche men's coach
- Klay Knueppel, Wisconsin Luthern women's coach
- Brad Bankston, ODAC Commissioner
- Pat Coleman & Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com (Bubble Talk)

If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: justafan12 on February 18, 2019, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: Caz Bombers on February 15, 2019, 05:12:45 PM
the NFCA poll, at all levels but especially in D3, should be thrown in a lake. It's only 8 voting coaches who clearly don't keep up with what's going on (nor should they be expected to, frankly, given their jobs) who just pick teams they've heard of or who their friends coach.

I have no idea if the coaches take their responsibility of voting seriously or not.  I know for the most part they have gotten the #1 ranked team correct for the past several years going all the way back to Tufts dominance. Do other sports have the same issue with a D3 poll?  I know volleyball, basketball, baseball and football have some organization that does a ranking; is it any better?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2019, 01:02:45 PM
I have had issues with WLAX and MLAX coaches polls for years - I'll never forget how the women kept a NESCAC team near the bottom of their Top 20 all season including before the NCAA playoffs despite a below .500 record ... "they are playing a tough schedule," yep and losing!

D3 basketball: men's poll hasn't existed for years, kind of got absorbed by D3hoops.com's poll; women's poll is eight coaches from each region. I don't think they do a great job, but they don't do a bad job. I think you need more opinions than one in each region to do that fairly.

Soccer is a joke. They basically to a poll for each region, then take the top X amount of teams plus one to fill in the Top 25. It is a completely bogus way of doing it. Sometimes the second or third team in a region isn't a Top 25 team, but in this system they are.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 18, 2019, 09:36:01 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2019, 01:02:45 PM
Soccer is a joke. They basically to a poll for each region, then take the top X amount of teams plus one to fill in the Top 25. It is a completely bogus way of doing it. Sometimes the second or third team in a region isn't a Top 25 team, but in this system they are.

Of course, men's and women's soccer also have independent polls (the d3soccer.com polls) that are separate from the coaches polls.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: sunny on February 19, 2019, 09:42:25 AM
Also, you have to look at the total number of first-place votes in some of these coaches polls on a week-to-week basis. There have been somewhere it's sort of open to whoever votes in time - so a week-to-week comparison is worthless because it's not the same pool of voters week to week.

Besides, any poll that starts with a preseason or week one poll is inherently flawed as an objective measure of teams THAT season because they all have to start somewhat with how the teams did the year before ... which, from an NCAA selection standpoint for that season, is completely irrelevant. By the final quarter of a season, do national polls sometimes do a pretty good job*? Yes, depends on the poll. But there's a lot of educated guessing going on prior to that. National season-long polls are fun, but I'm glad they aren't used to determine NCAA selection and seeding.   

*This is also why we don't see regional rankings now until much later in the season than we used to. It ensures that there is a larger "in-season" sample to be used as the initial jumping off point.

Finally, a collaborative ranking - which allows for discussion of criteria, etc., in working toward a consensus - is a little more "wonk-proof" than a blind-voting poll.

(Again, I like polls! Polls are fun! But I'm glad they aren't used for selection and seeding.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 12:23:50 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 18, 2019, 09:36:01 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 18, 2019, 01:02:45 PM
Soccer is a joke. They basically to a poll for each region, then take the top X amount of teams plus one to fill in the Top 25. It is a completely bogus way of doing it. Sometimes the second or third team in a region isn't a Top 25 team, but in this system they are.

Of course, men's and women's soccer also have independent polls (the d3soccer.com polls) that are separate from the coaches polls.

To be fair ... and I once voted on those polls ... they don't provide the best point of view, either ... especially when they miss a few weeks early on.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2019, 12:50:35 PM
Agreed. But they're definitely a big step up from the mandatory slotting-by-region that the USC polls use.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 12:56:43 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2019, 12:50:35 PM
Agreed. But they're definitely a big step up from the mandatory slotting-by-region that the USC polls use.

Agreed - the auto slotting ... is embarrassing in my opinion. It's also lazy and caters to the cry-baby coaches who don't like the idea they might not get ranked.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 20, 2019, 03:44:42 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 20, 2019, 12:56:43 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 20, 2019, 12:50:35 PM
Agreed. But they're definitely a big step up from the mandatory slotting-by-region that the USC polls use.

Agreed - the auto slotting ... is embarrassing in my opinion. It's also lazy and caters to the cry-baby coaches who don't like the idea they might not get ranked.

Auto slotting is why D3hoops.com started a poll in the first place. That's how the NABC did its "poll" back in the 90s.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 02, 2019, 02:38:53 PM
From Charley Walters' column today

https://www.twincities.com/2019/06/01/charley-walters-twins-in-market-for-dallas-keuchel-craig-kimbrel/?utm_content=tw-PioneerPress&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social


QuoteBelieve it or not, there has been a buzz that one MIAC school president wants to establish a Division IV for schools less inclined for elite competition.


This message board began in 2005 to discuss changes in the D-III/D-IV issues. Lots of things have changed since 2005, lots of new schools, several new conferences, a lot of Pool B bids that have vanished as conferences solidified their presence in the division.

Is there any speculation about whom are the schools/conferences to join a D-IV of that nature?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on June 03, 2019, 10:51:38 AM
I wouldn't put any stock in that tidbit of sports gossip, Ralph. After all, he got his facts wrong in the entry right above it, the one about how St. Thomas would have to quadruple its athletics budget if it moved to D2. Plus, there's been no corroboration from any other source -- not even a hint of it, as far as I can tell -- that anybody else in a position of authority is talking about having another go at forming D4.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 03, 2019, 12:38:40 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 03, 2019, 10:51:38 AM
I wouldn't put any stock in that tidbit of sports gossip, Ralph. After all, he got his facts wrong in the entry right above it, the one about how St. Thomas would have to quadruple its athletics budget if it moved to D2. Plus, there's been no corroboration from any other source -- not even a hint of it, as far as I can tell -- that anybody else in a position of authority is talking about having another go at forming D4.
Thanks. I could not imagine finding 10-12 conferences and 100 schools who would go along with it.

However, the logjam in football is still there, as Pat and Keith discussed in the most recent D3football.com podcast #237.  At the 6.5:1 bid allocation ratio, football is at 36.

That would make a 28 and 8 division possible, if 50-odd schools opted for a D-IV classification.


Link to podcast # 237.
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2019/05/22/atn-podcast-237-plenty-shout-about/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 03, 2019, 02:10:05 PM
Even if -- and we already have a big if -- that there is enough movement afoot to do this, there would still be the matter of amending the NCAA constitution to allow for a fourth division. Best of luck to all who are interested in trying.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on June 04, 2019, 10:35:53 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 03, 2019, 12:38:40 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 03, 2019, 10:51:38 AM
I wouldn't put any stock in that tidbit of sports gossip, Ralph. After all, he got his facts wrong in the entry right above it, the one about how St. Thomas would have to quadruple its athletics budget if it moved to D2. Plus, there's been no corroboration from any other source -- not even a hint of it, as far as I can tell -- that anybody else in a position of authority is talking about having another go at forming D4.
Thanks. I could not imagine finding 10-12 conferences and 100 schools who would go along with it.

However, the logjam in football is still there, as Pat and Keith discussed in the most recent D3football.com podcast #237.  At the 6.5:1 bid allocation ratio, football is at 36.

That would make a 28 and 8 division possible, if 50-odd schools opted for a D-IV classification.


Link to podcast # 237.
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2019/05/22/atn-podcast-237-plenty-shout-about/

Would D-IV have playoffs? What happens to the team that wins that, get booted out back to DIII?  ::)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on June 04, 2019, 10:40:26 AM
Quote from: Hawks88 on June 04, 2019, 10:35:53 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 03, 2019, 12:38:40 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 03, 2019, 10:51:38 AM
I wouldn't put any stock in that tidbit of sports gossip, Ralph. After all, he got his facts wrong in the entry right above it, the one about how St. Thomas would have to quadruple its athletics budget if it moved to D2. Plus, there's been no corroboration from any other source -- not even a hint of it, as far as I can tell -- that anybody else in a position of authority is talking about having another go at forming D4.
Thanks. I could not imagine finding 10-12 conferences and 100 schools who would go along with it.

However, the logjam in football is still there, as Pat and Keith discussed in the most recent D3football.com podcast #237.  At the 6.5:1 bid allocation ratio, football is at 36.

That would make a 28 and 8 division possible, if 50-odd schools opted for a D-IV classification.


Link to podcast # 237.
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2019/05/22/atn-podcast-237-plenty-shout-about/

Would D-IV have playoffs? What happens to the team that wins that, get booted out back to DIII?  ::)

The knock around on D-IV, back when it was actively being discussed and I don't really think that is the case now, was that there would not be playoffs.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on June 04, 2019, 12:45:18 PM
The plan behind D4, as it was envisioned by those who were pushing for it a decade ago, was that there would be no national championships awarded in D4 sports. All NCAA-sponsored postseason play would be strictly regional, so that there would be multiple "champions" in every sport. This was to re-emphasize the locally-based aspect of D3 sports that the D4 advocates felt that D3 was getting away from. I'm sure that their dream was to hold a "championship" for which none of the participating student-athletes ever had to miss a class or spend a weeknight in a hotel room, whether that was realistic or not.

In Ralph's scenario of a D4 large enough to have a football playoff of eight teams, this would mean what would be in essence four regionally-based bowl games, all played on the same day in early-to-mid-November, that would end the D4 football season. Nobody would ever play more than an eleven-game season.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 07, 2019, 06:22:06 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on June 04, 2019, 12:45:18 PM
The plan behind D4, as it was envisioned by those who were pushing for it a decade ago, was that there would be no national championships awarded in D4 sports. All NCAA-sponsored postseason play would be strictly regional, so that there would be multiple "champions" in every sport. This was to re-emphasize the locally-based aspect of D3 sports that the D4 advocates felt that D3 was getting away from. I'm sure that their dream was to hold a "championship" for which none of the participating student-athletes ever had to miss a class or spend a weeknight in a hotel room, whether that was realistic or not.

In Ralph's scenario of a D4 large enough to have a football playoff of eight teams, this would mean what would be in essence four regionally-based bowl games, all played on the same day in early-to-mid-November, that would end the D4 football season. Nobody would ever play more than an eleven-game season.

Sounds like NJ high school athletics - a very, very silly proposition.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2020, 01:49:29 PM
As belts tighten,

Eastern Washington University faculty members propose cutting sports to pay for academics

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/feb/17/eastern-washington-university-faculty-members-prop/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2020, 01:51:01 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2020, 01:49:29 PM
As belts tighten,

Eastern Washington University faculty members propose cutting sports to pay for academics

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/feb/17/eastern-washington-university-faculty-members-prop/

As I know most in the business who get it would say ... cutting sports would end up cutting their jobs ... but I digress. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 02:01:16 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2020, 01:49:29 PM
As belts tighten,

Eastern Washington University faculty members propose cutting sports to pay for academics

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/feb/17/eastern-washington-university-faculty-members-prop/

I don't believe athletics should have to cover all their expenses (as they certainly contribute to enrollment just about everywhere), but covering less than 10% of the budget through revenue is a tough sell.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 19, 2020, 02:23:50 PM
Quote"When I say Gonzaga, what do you think of?" she [Lynn Hickey, EWU AD] asked, alluding to the success of the Zags basketball team.

"When I say EWU, what do you think of?"
"Emu?   Like the flightless bird?"
"No, EWU, the university."
"EWU who?  I don't know any EWU."
"Eastern Washington University."
"There's a school in Eastern Washington?   Wow, is there a WWU, too?"

Seriously, I wonder how that 10% from alumni/ticket sales compares to other lesser D1 institutions.   I imagine it's not that far from most of the rest.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 19, 2020, 02:37:18 PM
They have that red field! That's what they're known for.

In most places faculty say something close to this, at least privately.

They usually draw about 8 or 9 thousand a game. I think they have a TV contract with Root Sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 19, 2020, 02:40:06 PM
LOL - turns out there is a WWU.   Ironically, they killed their [D2] FB program in 2009 (https://wwuvikings.com/news/2009/1/8/WWU_Ends_Football_Program_Ensures_Excellence_of_All_Other_Sports.aspx), a move which (at the time) "Ensures Excellence of All Other Sports". 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on February 19, 2020, 02:42:33 PM
You didn't have to ask me. CWU's arch rival is WWU (and Seattle Pacific) and without WWU in football we really don't have an arch rival there.

WWU is in Bellingham and it's said to be the 'safety school' for the Seattle rich kids who can't get into UW.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 19, 2020, 04:28:14 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 19, 2020, 02:23:50 PM
Quote"When I say Gonzaga, what do you think of?" she [Lynn Hickey, EWU AD] asked, alluding to the success of the Zags basketball team.

"When I say EWU, what do you think of?"
"Emu?   Like the flightless bird?"
"No, EWU, the university."
"EWU who?  I don't know any EWU."
"Eastern Washington University."
"There's a school in Eastern Washington?   Wow, is there a WWU, too?"

Seriously, I wonder how that 10% from alumni/ticket sales compares to other lesser D1 institutions.   I imagine it's not that far from most of the rest.

Bigger schools have TV revenue to make up for it, though.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on April 20, 2020, 09:15:45 AM
I wonder how many small schools are not going to come out of this? Lets start adding up already lost revenue... summer events including sports camps, weddings, scholars programs, alumni programs, summer classes and more. Refunded expenses such as room and board for the spring. Finally, endowment losses.

Now we talk about possible lost revenue in the fall... 1) incoming freshman. Lot of talk about putting college off for a year if you can. 2) international students. Will they be allowed in to the country? These are often the highest paying students. 3) Room and board if you can't open or if you can but are unwilling to open dorms and cafeterias. 3) Tuition. Not everyone is going to pay for online classes.

For DIII schools of course you get the benefit of not paying for sports, but that's small potatoes vs what you could lose if the Fall goes a bit wonky.

Personally, I'd be very concerned for any school with a sub $50MM endowment. Or any school with substantial debt on the books. I'd be mildly concerned for any school with a sub $100MM endowment. I'd be concerned for schools with a less than 1000 person enrollment. I'd be extremely concerned for any with a sub 700 enrollment.

Do I think we are going to see a ton of schools all of a sudden close their doors? No. But I think if we don't see fall classes and 80% first year classes, you are going to see a substantial number, call it 20-50 smaller schools, close before they get to Fall 2021.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 20, 2020, 10:29:15 AM
And as far as D3 competition goes, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that most of the schools that fit the endangered-institution profile you described are clumped together in leagues such as the SLIAC, the CSAC, the Atlantic East, the UMAC, etc.

We could see entire leagues go up in smoke by the time that this is over.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 20, 2020, 12:01:11 PM

Hearing from one college President recently, I think next summer will be the real mass closing window.  Most schools will be OK coming out of 2019-2020, but if there's a 10% enrollment drop across the board this fall (which is probably a low estimate), a lot of schools won't be able to ride that dip out.  I'm sure we'll see more schools close this year, but it feels like next summer may see even more.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on April 20, 2020, 12:14:58 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 20, 2020, 10:29:15 AM
And as far as D3 competition goes, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that most of the schools that fit the endangered-institution profile you described are clumped together in leagues such as the SLIAC, the CSAC, the Atlantic East, the UMAC, etc.

We could see entire leagues go up in smoke by the time that this is over.

2 of the 3 Division II conferences in my neck of the woods are made up of small private schools that I was surprised were still functioning before COVID-19 hit. One of them has 14 members, and if you told me that number will be zero within 36 months, I'd believe you.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on April 20, 2020, 12:50:09 PM
I have a question: If this gets really bad and 20-30 schools close, would we see Division 3 tournaments reduce the number of teams in the bracket? I know football is way above the 6.5 ratio right now and I think women's and maybe men's basketball as well but what about a sport like baseball or ice hockey that has been adding teams recently? Would ice hockey drop back to 11 or even 10 teams to maintain the ratio? Would baseball possibly drop to 52-54 for the same reason?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on April 20, 2020, 02:17:51 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on April 20, 2020, 12:50:09 PM
I have a question: If this gets really bad and 20-30 schools close, would we see Division 3 tournaments reduce the number of teams in the bracket? I know football is way above the 6.5 ratio right now and I think women's and maybe men's basketball as well but what about a sport like baseball or ice hockey that has been adding teams recently? Would ice hockey drop back to 11 or even 10 teams to maintain the ratio? Would baseball possibly drop to 52-54 for the same reason?

If it gets really bad you could see a lot worse than this happening. I'm still leaning toward this being the straw that breaks the Power 5 conference back if something happens to part of football season. Could see them heading out on their own to recoup revenue. The loss of revenue to the NCAA would do a lot more than affect ratios. We will see. For the sake of DIII, I hope FBS football can be played on schedule and with as much ticket selling as possible this fall. For the sake of the nation's health, I'm not sure it's a very good idea for that to happen...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on April 20, 2020, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 20, 2020, 12:01:11 PM

Hearing from one college President recently, I think next summer will be the real mass closing window.  Most schools will be OK coming out of 2019-2020, but if there's a 10% enrollment drop across the board this fall (which is probably a low estimate), a lot of schools won't be able to ride that dip out.  I'm sure we'll see more schools close this year, but it feels like next summer may see even more.

That's in line with what I think also. They will try and tough it out this year, but it may take every reserve they can scrape together. And if it doesn't bounce back in a banner way with admissions next year, there will be some plug pulling on these schools. We will see. It's just not a happy thought.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: scottiedoug on April 21, 2020, 10:06:12 AM
Meanwhile, Harvard got millions of dollars from the COVIT-19 "rescue" process.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on April 21, 2020, 11:00:00 AM
Many colleges got funds from the program, at least half of which must be provided to students as emergency relief.  According to the Texas Tribune (https://www.texastribune.org/2020/04/16/texas-universities-coronavirus/), $14 billion dollars was allocated in total.

As to how the amounts were determined, another story (https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/SE-Texas-colleges-students-to-get-federal-funds-15191044.php) says "[t]he funds were allocated based on a formula prescribed in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that weighs the number of full-time students who are Pell-eligible but also takes into consideration the total population of the school and the number of students who were not enrolled full-time online before the coronavirus outbreak."

This URL from Inside HigherEd (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/04/10/listing-funds-each-college-can-expect-receive-under-federal-stimulus) allows you to look up relief granted to any college.

Edit: redundant "dollars"
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jaller on April 21, 2020, 01:37:38 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 20, 2020, 12:01:11 PM

Hearing from one college President recently, I think next summer will be the real mass closing window.  Most schools will be OK coming out of 2019-2020, but if there's a 10% enrollment drop across the board this fall (which is probably a low estimate), a lot of schools won't be able to ride that dip out.  I'm sure we'll see more schools close this year, but it feels like next summer may see even more.
Is that President at a school I would be reasonably familiar with?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 21, 2020, 10:11:34 PM
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=9627f/28be7sftqex75v5h.jpg)

It has been a few years since Division III found itself at a place where so many important decisions needed to be made along with other events needing time and attention. However, never in NCAA history have we found ourselves with winter championships cut short, no spring sports at all, and more questions than answers for what might happen with fall sports and beyond.

COVID-19 has certainly made it's mark.

However, the coronavirus isn't the only important item in front of Division III that requires attention and decisions. Expanding and realigning regions in all sports is nearing the end of a multi-year process. The NCAA's effort to revamp it's student-athlete rules with "Names, Images, Likeness" (NIL) is at critical juncture, especially in DIII. And with the shutdown of 'March Madness' brought with it a sudden budget deficit.

That's just what Division III is dealing with overall. Individual schools are fighting just to keep the doors open. That could result in cutting sports, teams, or other challenges. That could cause conferences to tackle sudden changes in membership or sports sponsorships.

And of course, student-athletes and their well-being is even more important.

Plenty to be thinking about in Division III even athletes and teams are not competing right now.

On this special Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) Podcast, NCAA Vice President for Division III Dan Dutcher joins Dave McHugh for an extensive, in-depth, and detailed conversation on the "State of DIII." Dutcher talks about how the decisions to shut down winter and spring championships came to be. Plus, how COVID-19 continues to impact the division, NCAA, schools, and conferences around the country. Dutcher explains how this year's DIII budget was impacted and if there will be any impact down the road. And Dutcher discusses how NIL is taking form in DIII along with the latest on Regional Realignment and Expansion.

You can listen to the podcast here: https://bit.ly/3apilyF

Hoopsville broadcasts from the WBCA/NABC Studio. All guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline. The offseason plan is to do a podcast each month. The shows will be audio-only leading up to the start of the 2020-21 when we will restart the video shows.

If you have questions, ideas, or want to interact with the show, feel free to send them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options to the right.

If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


 
   
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
Hoopsville Season Archive: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville
YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 22, 2020, 08:01:14 AM
Quote from: jaller on April 21, 2020, 01:37:38 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 20, 2020, 12:01:11 PM

Hearing from one college President recently, I think next summer will be the real mass closing window.  Most schools will be OK coming out of 2019-2020, but if there's a 10% enrollment drop across the board this fall (which is probably a low estimate), a lot of schools won't be able to ride that dip out.  I'm sure we'll see more schools close this year, but it feels like next summer may see even more.
Is that President at a school I would be reasonably familiar with?

They're in a better financial place now,  but still very tuition dependent. Ten percent would be very tough. A lot higher local student percentage now, though, so they may be able to manage. We'll see.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on April 22, 2020, 10:23:32 PM
Quote from: scottiedoug on April 21, 2020, 10:06:12 AM
Meanwhile, Harvard got millions of dollars from the COVIT-19 "rescue" process.

Harvard will return CARES act monies (https://wach.com/news/nation-world/under-pressure-harvard-says-it-will-reject-us-relief-aid) (as will Princeton, Stanford).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 23, 2020, 01:52:52 PM
What is interesting about the schools returning the money ... they had applied for money that was specifically carved out to help students who because of these circumstances were now in some dire straights. They actually got money they deserved to get to try and help out students in need. Harvard, like many schools around the country, do accept students who may not come from the wealthiest homes or places and this new world may have really derailed them.

It is too bad they likely felt pressured to return money that was really designed to help their own students in these difficult times. Pressured because people thought they had taken money from a very different program that was abused and as I have read Harvard and others had nothing to do with.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 23, 2020, 09:38:51 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 23, 2020, 01:52:52 PM
What is interesting about the schools returning the money ... they had applied for money that was specifically carved out to help students who because of these circumstances were now in some dire straights. They actually got money they deserved to get to try and help out students in need. Harvard, like many schools around the country, do accept students who may not come from the wealthiest homes or places and this new world may have really derailed them.

It is too bad they likely felt pressured to return money that was really designed to help their own students in these difficult times. Pressured because people thought they had taken money from a very different program that was abused and as I have read Harvard and others had nothing to do with.

Harvard has a $40 billion endowment, Dave. That's billion with a 'b'. It's bigger than the GDPs of several European countries.

Do you honestly think that American taxpayers really need to step in and aid Harvard undergraduates with their tuition and their room & board because Harvard is unable to do so?

Not all of the money that was awarded to colleges and universities in the stimulus package was "specifically carved out to help students who because of these circumstances were now in some dire straights [sic]." The codicil to the stimulus package is that only half of the money need be given to students for emergency cash relief. The rest of the package can go straight into the coffers of the institutions themselves, with a few restrictions; for example, it can't be used for salaries or bonuses for senior institutional administrators or executives. It's that 50% codicil that drew the ire of the White House, and also a lot of other people, many of whom despise the president. And it's why Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, etc., quickly announced within a day or so that they would not be accepting the money, and would support their students out of their own voluminous endowments. And it's why other super-wealthy institutions of higher learning such as Notre Dame immediately announced that 100% of their stimulus money would go towards financial aid to students whose families have been impacted by the pandemic shutdown. Those schools all know a public-relations black eye when they see one.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on April 24, 2020, 09:23:40 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 23, 2020, 09:38:51 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 23, 2020, 01:52:52 PM
What is interesting about the schools returning the money ... they had applied for money that was specifically carved out to help students who because of these circumstances were now in some dire straights. They actually got money they deserved to get to try and help out students in need. Harvard, like many schools around the country, do accept students who may not come from the wealthiest homes or places and this new world may have really derailed them.

It is too bad they likely felt pressured to return money that was really designed to help their own students in these difficult times. Pressured because people thought they had taken money from a very different program that was abused and as I have read Harvard and others had nothing to do with.

Harvard has a $40 billion endowment, Dave. That's billion with a 'b'. It's bigger than the GDPs of several European countries.

Do you honestly think that American taxpayers really need to step in and aid Harvard undergraduates with their tuition and their room & board because Harvard is unable to do so?

Not all of the money that was awarded to colleges and universities in the stimulus package was "specifically carved out to help students who because of these circumstances were now in some dire straights [sic]." The codicil to the stimulus package is that only half of the money need be given to students for emergency cash relief. The rest of the package can go straight into the coffers of the institutions themselves, with a few restrictions; for example, it can't be used for salaries or bonuses for senior institutional administrators or executives. It's that 50% codicil that drew the ire of the White House, and also a lot of other people, many of whom despise the president. And it's why Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, etc., quickly announced within a day or so that they would not be accepting the money, and would support their students out of their own voluminous endowments. And it's why other super-wealthy institutions of higher learning such as Notre Dame immediately announced that 100% of their stimulus money would go towards financial aid to students whose families have been impacted by the pandemic shutdown. Those schools all know a public-relations black eye when they see one.

Good point, Greg.  Also do not forget that there are no student loans at Harvard (or Princeton), any student who qualifies for financial aid receives a grant from the university.  So student graduates with no financial aid debt.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 24, 2020, 01:12:29 PM
People tend to think that endowments can be used for anything and everything. I have no idea the makeup of Harvard's endowment, but I do know that many endowments have restrictions on WHAT they can be used for. I have been told this by college administrators on many an occasion when I see a school with an insanely high endowment and shotty athletics - the endowments can't be used for (pick something relevant). So while a school might have billions in those endowments, we don't know how that money is allowed to be used.

Furthermore, the money available for students in colleges was so that colleges don't have to pour BILLIONS into keeping them safe (basically with no end in sight) and keep the college from having to dip too far into their endowments ... thus keep them open.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2020, 02:31:16 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 24, 2020, 01:12:29 PM
People tend to think that endowments can be used for anything and everything. I have no idea the makeup of Harvard's endowment, but I do know that many endowments have restrictions on WHAT they can be used for. I have been told this by college administrators on many an occasion when I see a school with an insanely high endowment and shotty athletics - the endowments can't be used for (pick something relevant). So while a school might have billions in those endowments, we don't know how that money is allowed to be used.

It's quite true that a lot of endowment money typically consists of restricted funds that are the product of directed giving.

It's also true that Harvard's endowment is sixty billion dollars.

Sorry, Dave, but it's beyond belief that all $60,000,000,000 in Harvard's coffers is already earmarked for other uses. It strains credulity to think that Harvard has no more financial latitude than, say, the late and lamented MacMurray College.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 24, 2020, 01:12:29 PM
Furthermore, the money available for students in colleges was so that colleges don't have to pour BILLIONS into keeping them safe (basically with no end in sight) and keep the college from having to dip too far into their endowments ... thus keep them open.

C'mon, Dave. Harvard has fewer than 7,000 undergraduates. The cost that the school will incur to provide debt relief for the economically-challenged individuals among that 7,000 -- which is, let's be honest, not that large a percentage of the Harvard student body -- doesn't come anywhere close to being in the billions of dollars. It may not even end up being in the millions.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 24, 2020, 02:32:31 PM
I choose to not attack schools for decisions in a time we have never experienced ...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2020, 02:36:22 PM
And I choose to applaud schools for doing the right thing, like Harvard just did in giving back the money. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 26, 2020, 03:16:41 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2020, 02:36:22 PM
And I choose to applaud schools for doing the right thing, like Harvard just did in giving back the money. ;)

I think you misunderstood my original point ... Harvard gave back the money under pressure that was based on the wrong pretenses. The "small business loans" story had gained traction for a number of not-so-small businesses like Ruth Chris' Steakhouse that had gotten significant loans from a system not designed for them (due to lots of problems, loopholes, and lack of proper details on both sides of the entire thing). In that "story," many started looking around and found other anomalies and one that people "found" and conflated into the story was Harvard. As if they had gotten a loan from the same small business set-up. Even when it was discovered where their loan had really come from (the one set-up to help students who were suddenly in a tough spot), no one wanted to correct the point (or at least no one anyone wanted to listen to ... but I won't get started on that).

So my point was it was unfortunate that Harvard felt pressured into a decision based on a completely different system, story, and premise, instead of there being a legit convo on the merits of the system they actually got the money from and what the purpose was.

Thus ... I don't want to attack or knock them necessarily because I don't feel the entire scenario was all that fair or forthright towards them.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on April 26, 2020, 05:14:17 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 26, 2020, 03:16:41 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2020, 02:36:22 PM
And I choose to applaud schools for doing the right thing, like Harvard just did in giving back the money. ;)

I think you misunderstood my original point ... Harvard gave back the money under pressure that was based on the wrong pretenses. The "small business loans" story had gained traction for a number of not-so-small businesses like Ruth Chris' Steakhouse that had gotten significant loans from a system not designed for them (due to lots of problems, loopholes, and lack of proper details on both sides of the entire thing). In that "story," many started looking around and found other anomalies and one that people "found" and conflated into the story was Harvard. As if they had gotten a loan from the same small business set-up. Even when it was discovered where their loan had really come from (the one set-up to help students who were suddenly in a tough spot), no one wanted to correct the point (or at least no one anyone wanted to listen to ... but I won't get started on that).

So my point was it was unfortunate that Harvard felt pressured into a decision based on a completely different system, story, and premise, instead of there being a legit convo on the merits of the system they actually got the money from and what the purpose was.

Thus ... I don't want to attack or knock them necessarily because I don't feel the entire scenario was all that fair or forthright towards them.

Plus the government crafted a formula, applied it to all colleges, and said "here you go, $X thousand/million to help with COVID expenses, of which half must go to students" and published a list of recipients.  Harvard, Princeton, etc. didn't seek out that money, unlike the large publicly-traded companies who deliberately took advantage of a loophole in the "small-business" program.  But they were subjected to outrage as if they had. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 26, 2020, 08:57:24 PM
Yeah ... I also forgot that part. SMH
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 27, 2020, 11:34:17 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 26, 2020, 03:16:41 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 24, 2020, 02:36:22 PM
And I choose to applaud schools for doing the right thing, like Harvard just did in giving back the money. ;)

I think you misunderstood my original point ... Harvard gave back the money under pressure that was based on the wrong pretenses. The "small business loans" story had gained traction for a number of not-so-small businesses like Ruth Chris' Steakhouse that had gotten significant loans from a system not designed for them (due to lots of problems, loopholes, and lack of proper details on both sides of the entire thing). In that "story," many started looking around and found other anomalies and one that people "found" and conflated into the story was Harvard. As if they had gotten a loan from the same small business set-up. Even when it was discovered where their loan had really come from (the one set-up to help students who were suddenly in a tough spot), no one wanted to correct the point (or at least no one anyone wanted to listen to ... but I won't get started on that).

As I pointed out in my previous post, the money was (and is) available for more than just to "help students who were suddenly in a tight spot." It's the priority purpose, as I said, since at least 50% of the money has to go to that purpose, but the rest of it can go right into a school's coffers for whatever purpose it sees fit, excluding the salaries of administrators. And I'm sorry, but Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, etc., do not need that money, no way, no how.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 26, 2020, 03:16:41 PMSo my point was it was unfortunate that Harvard felt pressured into a decision based on a completely different system, story, and premise, instead of there being a legit convo on the merits of the system they actually got the money from and what the purpose was.

I absolutely agree that the actual system, story, and premise under which Harvard got the money deserves a legit convo on the merits of the system they got the money from and what the purpose was. And we are having that legit convo right now. And I am saying that Harvard should not get the money, because it doesn't need it.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 26, 2020, 03:16:41 PMThus ... I don't want to attack or knock them necessarily because I don't feel the entire scenario was all that fair or forthright towards them.

OK, so some media outlets mistakenly conflated the academic-institutions-bailout story with the small-businesses-bailout story. That's certainly something that needs to be clarified. But, again, that's not what I've been discussing. I'm discussing Harvard, Stanford, etc. getting CARES Act money through the same program that Bethany Lutheran, Otterbein, UMPI, and Agnes Scott are getting theirs.

Quote from: Ron Boerger on April 26, 2020, 05:14:17 PM
Plus the government crafted a formula, applied it to all colleges, and said "here you go, $X thousand/million to help with COVID expenses, of which half must go to students" and published a list of recipients.  Harvard, Princeton, etc. didn't seek out that money, unlike the large publicly-traded companies who deliberately took advantage of a loophole in the "small-business" program.  But they were subjected to outrage as if they had. 

Agreed. It was a slapdash, makeshift, all-encompassing government program thrown together in what seemed to be a matter of hours, and it obviously wasn't clearly thought through well enough. Kudos to the federal government for acting with alacrity for a change, but a little more time spent putting the package together would've allowed some common sense to sink in regarding the fact that certain premium universities that are already awash in available funds don't need the money at all, while other institutions are desperate to get it (and in at least one case, MacMurray, couldn't hang on long enough to get it, although who knows if MacMurray would've survived another school year even if the bailout money had showed up on the doorstep in Jacksonville, IL in the nick of time).

Yeah, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and their ilk got a PR black eye. Princeton apparently never said that it would take the money, so I'd say that Princeton's black eye was undeserved. But, whether Harvard asked for the money or not in the first place, it was going to take the money, regardless. Here's the key quote from the article below:

QuoteAs recently as Tuesday, Harvard officials said they planned to direct the entirety of the funds to students in financial crisis because of the pandemic.

"Harvard has committed that 100% of these emergency higher education funds will be used to provide direct assistance to students facing urgent financial needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic," Jonathan Swain, spokesman for Harvard, said in a statement.

Whether Swain's statement was accurate or not -- call me skeptical that Harvard has so many indigent students that need short-term financial aid that it would take all of $8.6 million to meet their needs -- the fact of the matter is that Harvard was going to take that money, until it was shamed into doing an about-face.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-04-22/harvard-caves-to-trump-demand-to-return-coronavirus-stimulus-money
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 27, 2020, 01:31:07 PM

For what it's worth in the debate, Harvard has said publicly they've got about 20% of the endowment unrestricted.  You'd think this would be the "rainy day" they might've been saving up for.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 27, 2020, 01:41:48 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 27, 2020, 01:31:07 PM

For what it's worth in the debate, Harvard has said publicly they've got about 20% of the endowment unrestricted.  You'd think this would be the "rainy day" they might've been saving up for.

I was JUST reading this today (and I know Ryan was reading the same thing). To my point earlier: endowments can have a lot of restrictions. Harvard has 80% of it's endowment tied up to specifics of what the donor(s) placed for restrictions on the money's use.

It is interesting and honestly something I have to re-read again: https://abc7news.com/why-coronavirus-battered-universities-may-not-be-able-to-use-their-endowments/6129316/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on April 27, 2020, 02:10:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 27, 2020, 01:41:48 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 27, 2020, 01:31:07 PM

For what it's worth in the debate, Harvard has said publicly they've got about 20% of the endowment unrestricted.  You'd think this would be the "rainy day" they might've been saving up for.

I was JUST reading this today (and I know Ryan was reading the same thing). To my point earlier: endowments can have a lot of restrictions. Harvard has 80% of it's endowment tied up to specifics of what the donor(s) placed for restrictions on the money's use.

It is interesting and honestly something I have to re-read again: https://abc7news.com/why-coronavirus-battered-universities-may-not-be-able-to-use-their-endowments/6129316/

Yeah well. 80% of $40 billion still leaves $8 billion more. At 5% interest, that's $400 million. So at 8000 students that's $50,000 per student.

We all get it. They can't tap the majority of the endowment for whatever they want, but a school like Harvard floats in money. They handed it back, so good for them. They took some flack? Well... when you are top dog, you get the most shots. That's part of being top dog. Maybe it wasn't fair, but originally it seemed like they were going to keep it and the pressure helped them make the right decision.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 27, 2020, 02:17:47 PM
(https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/scale_super/11117/111175090/4150828-this_gif.gif)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 27, 2020, 03:17:30 PM
Quote from: jknezek on April 27, 2020, 02:10:53 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on April 27, 2020, 01:41:48 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 27, 2020, 01:31:07 PM

For what it's worth in the debate, Harvard has said publicly they've got about 20% of the endowment unrestricted.  You'd think this would be the "rainy day" they might've been saving up for.

I was JUST reading this today (and I know Ryan was reading the same thing). To my point earlier: endowments can have a lot of restrictions. Harvard has 80% of it's endowment tied up to specifics of what the donor(s) placed for restrictions on the money's use.

It is interesting and honestly something I have to re-read again: https://abc7news.com/why-coronavirus-battered-universities-may-not-be-able-to-use-their-endowments/6129316/

Yeah well. 80% of $40 billion still leaves $8 billion more. At 5% interest, that's $400 million. So at 8000 students that's $50,000 per student.

We all get it. They can't tap the majority of the endowment for whatever they want, but a school like Harvard floats in money. They handed it back, so good for them. They took some flack? Well... when you are top dog, you get the most shots. That's part of being top dog. Maybe it wasn't fair, but originally it seemed like they were going to keep it and the pressure helped them make the right decision.

And as pointed out ... they didn't necessarily ask for it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on April 27, 2020, 05:05:31 PM
I got money I didn't ask for, and I'm not giving it back. :P ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 27, 2020, 06:07:03 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on April 27, 2020, 05:05:31 PM
I got money I didn't ask for, and I'm not giving it back. :P ;)

LOL. Yep!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: cciw83 on May 01, 2020, 05:18:54 PM
A really interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal on Coronavirus Pushes Colleges to the Breaking Point. I don't think the link will share except to paid subscribers.

I did not realize until I saw the article that MacMurray College in Jacksonville, Il was closing. The article quotes the author of the "The College Stress Test" that 200 of the nation's 1,000 private, liberal arts colleges could close in the next year. It is a lengthy article on multiple issues and mentions a number of D-3 schools.  It is a worthwhile read.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 01, 2020, 05:44:09 PM
We have a very D-III knowledgeable higher ed expert on the new D3football.com podcast to talk about similar things.
https://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2020/04/30/atn-podcast-274-who-knows-whats-next/

(Last month, in Podcast 273, we have MacMurray's coach talking about the news of the closure.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on May 02, 2020, 04:46:28 PM
Quote from: cciw83 on May 01, 2020, 05:18:54 PM
A really interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal on Coronavirus Pushes Colleges to the Breaking Point. I don't think the link will share except to paid subscribers.

I did not realize until I saw the article that MacMurray College in Jacksonville, Il was closing. The article quotes the author of the "The College Stress Test" that 200 of the nation's 1,000 private, liberal arts colleges could close in the next year. It is a lengthy article on multiple issues and mentions a number of D-3 schools.  It is a worthwhile read.

I'm pretty surprised the WSJ didn't include that story as part of their free reads per their Coronavirus category.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on May 02, 2020, 09:43:26 PM
My take (NO insider info, but lots of reading) is that any colleges that go under in the next sixth months were probably doomed within the next few years anyway.  However, IF COVID-19 is not faced with effective treatments and/or vaccines within a year, I think MANY schools will buckle under. 

Who is going to pay private-school prices to have online teaching?  Community Colleges will steal HUGE amounts of private school  moneys if colleges can't re-open for face-to-face instruction.  If colleges are still shut down in 2021, it may be chaos.

The problem, of course, is that dorms are total vectors for infection.  Testing MUST be drastically ramped up or D3 schools are in deep doo-doo.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 02, 2020, 09:52:04 PM
Agreed that there are plenty of stressed colleges already and those are the ones that are likely to go first.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on May 03, 2020, 09:01:32 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on May 02, 2020, 09:43:26 PM
My take (NO insider info, but lots of reading) is that any colleges that go under in the next sixth months were probably doomed within the next few years anyway.  However, IF COVID-19 is not faced with effective treatments and/or vaccines within a year, I think MANY schools will buckle under. 

Who is going to pay private-school prices to have online teaching?  Community Colleges will steal HUGE amounts of private school  moneys if colleges can't re-open for face-to-face instruction.  If colleges are still shut down in 2021, it may be chaos.

The problem, of course, is that dorms are total vectors for infection.  Testing MUST be drastically ramped up or D3 schools are in deep doo-doo.

I will argue that dorms are not perfect vectors for the disease.  Colleges can create a closed atmosphere (similar to the Harry S Truman Air craft carrier: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/harry-s-truman-deployment-coronavirus)   Test everyone, practice hand washing, limit the visits from those outside the institution, maybe no "breaks" until Christmas.  Dorms are not nursing homes or cruise ships,  healthy/young vs sicker/elderly. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on May 03, 2020, 11:39:09 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on May 03, 2020, 09:01:32 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on May 02, 2020, 09:43:26 PM
My take (NO insider info, but lots of reading) is that any colleges that go under in the next sixth months were probably doomed within the next few years anyway.  However, IF COVID-19 is not faced with effective treatments and/or vaccines within a year, I think MANY schools will buckle under. 

Who is going to pay private-school prices to have online teaching?  Community Colleges will steal HUGE amounts of private school  moneys if colleges can't re-open for face-to-face instruction.  If colleges are still shut down in 2021, it may be chaos.

The problem, of course, is that dorms are total vectors for infection.  Testing MUST be drastically ramped up or D3 schools are in deep doo-doo.

I will argue that dorms are not perfect vectors for the disease.  Colleges can create a closed atmosphere (similar to the Harry S Truman Air craft carrier: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/harry-s-truman-deployment-coronavirus)   Test everyone, practice hand washing, limit the visits from those outside the institution, maybe no "breaks" until Christmas.  Dorms are not nursing homes or cruise ships,  healthy/young vs sicker/elderly.

Students are unlikely to be willing participants in a scheme that forces them to pay tens of thousands of dollars a semester to be cooped up for months at a time; they're not members of the Armed Forces who either do what they are told or are subject to serious discipline.   In addition, many students don't live on campus, and some/many schools are unable to provide on-campus lodging for all their students.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on May 03, 2020, 02:08:13 PM
Mask wearing on campus will likely become the norm as it will be for the rest of us. Just look to Asia where mask wearing has become much more the norm because of viruses like this. Part of our norm will be masks for everyone - I don't expect full lockdowns on campuses, but I do expect there to be a different look.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on May 03, 2020, 02:48:48 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on May 03, 2020, 02:08:13 PM
Mask wearing on campus will likely become the norm as it will be for the rest of us. Just look to Asia where mask wearing has become much more the norm because of viruses like this. Part of our norm will be masks for everyone - I don't expect full lockdowns on campuses, but I do expect there to be a different look.
Dating will be based on personality rather than looks. :P
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on May 04, 2020, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on May 03, 2020, 02:08:13 PM
Mask wearing on campus will likely become the norm as it will be for the rest of us. Just look to Asia where mask wearing has become much more the norm because of viruses like this.

Actually, Dave, mask-wearing as a contagion blocker has been the norm in East Asia for decades. Trust me on this one; North Park's campus borders on Chicago's Koreatown, and Chicago's Little Saigon (the center of Vietnamese culture in the Midwest) is two and a half miles east of campus in the Uptown neighborhood. The city's Far North Side is flush with East Asian immigrants, and I've seen them wearing masks throughout the forty years I've lived here.

It'd be more pleasant if Americans at large adopted bulgoki or pho or banh mi sandwiches as cultural borrowings the way that they took to sushi and chow mein in previous generations, but I suppose that there's worse things than to have your country's tradition of self-initiative with regard to public health become an American cultural import.

Quote from: Gray Fox on May 03, 2020, 02:48:48 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on May 03, 2020, 02:08:13 PM
Mask wearing on campus will likely become the norm as it will be for the rest of us. Just look to Asia where mask wearing has become much more the norm because of viruses like this. Part of our norm will be masks for everyone - I don't expect full lockdowns on campuses, but I do expect there to be a different look.
Dating will be based on personality rather than looks. :P

Or TikTok skills.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on May 04, 2020, 10:42:50 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on May 04, 2020, 10:30:30 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on May 03, 2020, 02:08:13 PM
Mask wearing on campus will likely become the norm as it will be for the rest of us. Just look to Asia where mask wearing has become much more the norm because of viruses like this.

Actually, Dave, mask-wearing as a contagion blocker has been the norm in East Asia for decades. Trust me on this one; North Park's campus borders on Chicago's Koreatown, and Chicago's Little Saigon (the center of Vietnamese culture in the Midwest) is two and a half miles east of campus in the Uptown neighborhood. The city's Far North Side is flush with East Asian immigrants, and I've seen them wearing masks throughout the forty years I've lived here.

It'd be more pleasant if Americans at large adopted bulgoki or pho or banh mi sandwiches as cultural borrowings the way that they took to sushi and chow mein in previous generations, but I suppose that there's worse things than to have your country's tradition of self-initiative with regard to public health become an American cultural import.


Now I want banh mi for dinner... going to have to see if the thai place is doing curbside pickup...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on May 21, 2020, 06:07:44 PM
An on-point San Antonio Express-News interview with Trinity(TX) president Danny Anderson about the impact of COVID-19 past, present, and future; while the emphasis is on Trinity, Dr. Anderson also discusses the impact to higher education and small, residential liberal arts schools like Trinity (and many other D3 colleges).   You may need to kill your ad-blocker to view this but it otherwise is not behind a paywall.  https://www.expressnews.com/news/education/article/Trinity-University-president-talks-about-15286108.php
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 07, 2020, 02:24:42 AM
Please permit me to post this link to a 17-minute video of Marketing Prof Scott Galloway, NYU's Stern School of Business, on the effect of COVID on higher education.

He cites 4500 colleges and universities in the US. Might 1000 be gone in 5-10 years?

The cost-cutting that we have seen in other sectors of the economy has not occurred in education, yet.

Thanks.

https://youtu.be/FM5HkpyXxsQ
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 07, 2020, 06:44:01 PM
It's very likely. The population of college age students is going to experience a 10-12 year dip anyway; this kind of disruption only exacerbates issues schools were already facing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 11, 2020, 05:36:52 AM
I don't think a quarter will go bust, not even close.  Colleges, even with the economy shutdown, won't go bust until the gov't turns off the free money spigot of infinite student debt.  Plus, when it gets really tight there is a lot of non-student facing expense (ie, non-revenue generating headcount) which can get the axe before a school goes bust.  The biggest driver of college expense has been an explosion in administrative staff.

(https://i1.wp.com/sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MSMFreePress_raw_illus_04.jpg?resize=1024%2C591&ssl=1)

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see enrolments rise at the last minute instead of falling, and schools will happy to take the extra students on short notice.  With no jobs and no prospects why wouldn't a person go to school?  Are they just going to sit around a year playing xbox?  Almost certainly some student debt special will be offered as the election approaches and it will drive enrolment.  Perhaps not, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 11, 2020, 09:20:14 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on June 11, 2020, 05:36:52 AM
I don't think a quarter will go bust, not even close.  Colleges, even with the economy shutdown, won't go bust until the gov't turns off the free money spigot of infinite student debt.  Plus, when it gets really tight there is a lot of non-student facing expense (ie, non-revenue generating headcount) which can get the axe before a school goes bust.  The biggest driver of college expense has been an explosion in administrative staff.

(https://i1.wp.com/sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MSMFreePress_raw_illus_04.jpg?resize=1024%2C591&ssl=1)

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see enrolments rise at the last minute instead of falling, and schools will happy to take the extra students on short notice.  With no jobs and no prospects why wouldn't a person go to school?  Are they just going to sit around a year playing xbox?  Almost certainly some student debt special will be offered as the election approaches and it will drive enrolment.  Perhaps not, but I wouldn't be surprised.


A lot of small schools (especially D3 schools) have already pared back their administrative costs and are running pretty close to bare minimums.  A quarter may be high, but a decreasing potential student pool was already endangering those at the bottom of the economic ladder to begin with.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 11, 2020, 01:14:32 PM
Federal money for student debt is one thing ... students choosing to use that money to go to a particular institution is another.

There are less students going to college. There was already a downward trend before COVID-19, but that trend has now been shoved. The idea of college is waning both in terms of it's overall costs (and debt one finds themselves in after college), but also because the trades have been found to be the best fit for students (and pays pretty well as the trades should). Also, some are realizing they can do okay for themselves without going to college and losing a few years in the workforce as a result.

I know college isn't a direct reason I am in my career field. I am not sure I would have skipped college, though. Trade schools, in hindsight, might have been a consideration if I had realized the potential, but that doesn't mean it would have been a fit for me. That is said to indicate, I think college students are thinking more and more on whether college is the right path. We have far more colleges than what is needed. That's just reality. I think community colleges and trade schools will see an increase in the near future and those colleges that don't have a place in our world will disappear (and some that are old and unwilling to adapt).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 11, 2020, 06:53:07 PM
I used to agree with you, d-mac.  I, too, thought the higher education bubble couldn't last.  And it certainly won't, but it's not going to crash yet.  There is plenty of bilking to go before the tax payer (actually our grand children as we'll never need to pay back this debt we're racking up) is bled dry for loans funding useless "education".  Ever since the 2009 with whatever stimulus giveaways Washington has created, the debt which the Feds have assumed on behalf of the tax payer for student loans has skyrocketed with no end in sight.

About the only idea I've heard which perhaps has a chance of creating an approach to student debt which mirrors the debt we see everywhere else in the world would be to make colleges co-sign for the loans and therefore responsible for defaults.  If universities want to fill their halls with people who can't afford it and sell them degrees which will never earn a return (or most likely, no degree at all as about 2 million students drop out each year with about $7.5k of debt on average and nothing ever to show for it) then let the universities finance it.

But I doubt that will happen either.  Instead it will crash one day like the Hindenburg.  And it will be ugly.

(https://36hrw115apll2tgpf9vbfhw1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/federal-student-loans-outstanding-data_chartbuilder1.png)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 11, 2020, 07:08:55 PM
I tried to find a general view of the trend toward higher admin costs but only found this specific example of the University of Minnesota with a general view of expenses from the Wall Street Journal.  I can't speak to any specific D3 school, but administrative bloat has been the most significant trend in higher education it seems to me over the last 10 years.

If the UofM is indicative rather than an outlier used by the WSJ to make a false point, then it seems that admin costs are far out stripping student enrolment and financed only by the free money of student loans.  Admin costs have been growing at 3x the pace of teaching costs, which have been growing slower than student numbers meaning the administrators appear to be bleeding the revenue generating teaching staff as well.  They should consider the implications of this graph in some political theory classes, methinks.

(https://eliterate.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/WSJ-graphic.jpg)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 11, 2020, 07:17:49 PM
I don't think things will "crash" per se ... but I do think we will see a significant gut check.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on June 20, 2020, 09:25:35 AM
Has anyone actually seen it documented how many levels of bureaucracy need to be cleared in order for football to be played in the fall?  I assume there needs to be clearance from (in descending order) federal, state, county, NCAA, League and finally individual school.  I assume that at any of these levels a "veto" could be applied. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 20, 2020, 05:09:05 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on June 20, 2020, 09:25:35 AM
Has anyone actually seen it documented how many levels of bureaucracy need to be cleared in order for football to be played in the fall?  I assume there needs to be clearance from (in descending order) federal, state, county, NCAA, League and finally individual school.  I assume that at any of these levels a "veto" could be applied.

I'm not sure about a few of those ... county and NCAA or even conference.

County - that depends on the state, actually. Each place is going to be different, so that may or may not exist.

NCAA - the NCAA is basically allowing schools and conferences to make the decisions that are best for them. The NCAA will only control one thing, ultimately, and that is post-season tournaments (and as most should know, that does NOT include the FBS stuff). If the NCAA decides not to hold the championships, that doesn't mean teams can't still play schedules up until that point. So, I don't expect the NCAA to tell schools and such they can't have teams or seasons this year (remember, they didn't do that in the spring, either).

League (Conference) - There may be some that have all-conference decisions and there may be some that the conferences have guidelines, but I think if a school wants to field it's team(s) and others that don't ... so be it. Conferences (and the NCAA) are going to help schools with whatever decisions they make, but I don't think any of them are "clearly" their schools to start or not start. Like I said, there may be some who decide to cancel seasons (I am hearing rumblings I hope are inaccurate or jumping the gun), but I think they were be rare at this stage - let's remember, a LOT can chance in a matter of days, weeks, etc.

I'll throw in federal to some extent - so far, the federal government hasn't dictated anything especially when it comes to sports. I am not sure they are going to be involved in this at all. The states have had the control and power basically because each state is dealing with things other states may not be dealing with. Federal may put out regulations or guidelines from the CDC, but I don't envision the federal government dictate whether "small college number 104" can have it's teams or not.

Let's also remember ... there is more than football involved here. All sports this fall and moving forward will have different challenges that those individual sports bring to the table that need to be handled or at least planned accordingly.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 21, 2020, 09:54:06 AM

I think the only two actual restrictions that exist are some gathering limits in some states that might affect a football practice and, I believe, NY State still have restrictions on campuses being open - other than that, it's up to what the schools are comfortable with.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 21, 2020, 10:46:17 PM
I don't see a lot of colleges in the states where new COVID cases are developing out of control (hello TEXAS) being able to have students on campus in less than two months, happy statements by college presidents, SIDs, or conference heads notwithstanding. 

And if you can't get all students on campus, you're not going to have athletics, at least not in D3.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 22, 2020, 09:26:04 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 21, 2020, 10:46:17 PM
I don't see a lot of colleges in the states where new COVID cases are developing out of control (hello TEXAS) being able to have students on campus in less than two months, happy statements by college presidents, SIDs, or conference heads notwithstanding. 

And if you can't get all students on campus, you're not going to have athletics, at least not in D3.

The big number to watch is hospitalizations.  Here in Delaware we had a good five weeks of decreasing numbers of people in the hospital, all while the number of cases continued to rise.  I'm sure some states really are seeing troubling increases in spread, for us it was more about having testing more widely available.  We were identifying more asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic folks.

Texas and Arizona and Florida are almost definitely seeing spread, but I've found the number of people in the hospital seems to be much more indicative of where there's real trouble.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on June 22, 2020, 10:30:34 AM
Indications from Arizona (and I believe Texas, although I haven't seen as many articles on that) suggest that COVID-related hospitalization is on a steady rise there.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on June 22, 2020, 11:42:56 AM
Quote from: jamtod on June 22, 2020, 10:30:34 AM
Indications from Arizona (and I believe Texas, although I haven't seen as many articles on that) suggest that COVID-related hospitalization is on a steady rise there.

Alabama is struggling with hospitalizations in some areas, specifically Montgomery and more rural areas. FL hospitalizations are back on the rise reaching the highest since May 25 on a 7 day rolling basis, though it doesn't seem to be anywhere near capacity of course. The question becomes... does anyone care?

In AL, the mainstream answer is generally no. The majority of people are simply done. Despite alarming numbers... fewer masks, more large gatherings, and more allowed contact for sports, restaurants, and businesses continues to happen. I suspect in the more skeptical areas of the country, which involve a lot of major college football areas, that will be the way of it. I also suspect major athletics will go on at h.s and major college levels. We will see.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 22, 2020, 04:22:37 PM
Texas' case load is unfortunately on a near exponential curve (see this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/fi0pyedur2124rk/2020-06-22_15-18-11.jpg?dl=0), data from Johns Hopkins), increasing by 3-4K cases per day (and growing), closing in on 120,000 cases.  This increase is well in excess of what could be expected from increased testing rates.   COVID hospitalizations have doubled from under 1700 at the end of May to over 3400 yesterday (22 days to double and likely not reflective of the recent rapid increase in cases as hospitalizations are a trailing indicator).  Many high schools that had started voluntary football workouts have had to shut them down due to COVID infections.   I can't see schools being willing to put their students at risk in less than two months given these trends.

Despite today saying that "COVID-19 is now spreading at an unacceptable rate in Texas," the governor (Abbott) refuses to require facial masking or to even allow local governments to issue such directives.   The only concession he has made was last week when after weeks of frustration San Antonio's county issued a directive that businesses may require customers/ employees to mask, he stated "[e]arlier today the county judge in Bexar County finally figured that out" rather than give such guidance at the beginning of the month when he dictated that local officials couldn't do anything to require masks.  This ends up making businesses (and front-line workers) enforce masking, rather than government.

There is absolutely *nothing* on the horizon to slow the spread of COVID in this state.   More and more businesses are being opened and too many people in this red state are more concerned about their "freedom" rather than the health and welfare of themselves and those around them. 

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 22, 2020, 04:34:09 PM
I wish more people understood what you understand, Ron. That increased testing certainly will increase positive cases to some degree, but at some point what we are seeing is well in excess of how that math works. If we are still seeing positive cases increasing, there is a problem. No one testing positive to this now has been positive since February. I am just amazed at how many don't grasp that concept.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 25, 2020, 02:22:39 AM
End state?  It's either a cure or normalized spread in the community like any other virus.  And with no vaccine guaranteed (still no vaccine for AIDS 40 years later or SARS I 10 years later) then widespread infection and dreaded herd immunity, like with every other FLI virus, is the only guaranteed end state.  The virus cannot be eradicated, nor should it as it's no small pox or MERS, so the challenge is to manage the spread balancing the restrictions against our ability to treat the symptoms.

Slowing the spread and flattening the curve has slowly morphed into stop the spread and eliminate the curve.  Those new goals are unattainable and should be rejected.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on June 25, 2020, 08:59:12 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on June 25, 2020, 02:22:39 AM
End state?  It's either a cure or normalized spread in the community like any other virus.  And with no vaccine guaranteed (still no vaccine for AIDS 40 years later or SARS I 10 years later) then widespread infection and dreaded herd immunity, like with every other FLI virus, is the only guaranteed end state.  The virus cannot be eradicated, nor should it as it's no small pox or MERS, so the challenge is to manage the spread balancing the restrictions against our ability to treat the symptoms.

Slowing the spread and flattening the curve has slowly morphed into stop the spread and eliminate the curve.  Those new goals are unattainable and should be rejected.

Something like what Australia achieved ought not be unattainable, and in parts of the US, the spread hasn't been slowed and the curve is rising rapidly for hospitalizations.
A vaccine is likely (I am hopeful, but it may take some time) and herd immunity from infection has never truly been the path for dealing with something like this (I welcome a counter-example) and would entail the kinds of "dooms-day" death modeling that you've ranted against (perhaps over a slightly longer timeline as the spread has been slowed and nearly stopped in many places), not to mention there is no guarantee how long-lasting that immunity is.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 25, 2020, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: jamtod on June 25, 2020, 08:59:12 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on June 25, 2020, 02:22:39 AM
End state?  It's either a cure or normalized spread in the community like any other virus.  And with no vaccine guaranteed (still no vaccine for AIDS 40 years later or SARS I 10 years later) then widespread infection and dreaded herd immunity, like with every other FLI virus, is the only guaranteed end state.  The virus cannot be eradicated, nor should it as it's no small pox or MERS, so the challenge is to manage the spread balancing the restrictions against our ability to treat the symptoms.

Slowing the spread and flattening the curve has slowly morphed into stop the spread and eliminate the curve.  Those new goals are unattainable and should be rejected.

Something like what Australia achieved ought not be unattainable, and in parts of the US, the spread hasn't been slowed and the curve is rising rapidly for hospitalizations.
A vaccine is likely (I am hopeful, but it may take some time) and herd immunity from infection has never truly been the path for dealing with something like this (I welcome a counter-example) and would entail the kinds of "dooms-day" death modeling that you've ranted against (perhaps over a slightly longer timeline as the spread has been slowed and nearly stopped in many places), not to mention there is no guarantee how long-lasting that immunity is.

A counter example that herd immunity is viable?  Every other coronavirus work?  Rhinovirus?  Influenza?  Every epi/pandemic that's every happened?

Australia is a different situation to most places.  An extremely dry, hot and unpopulated country and the virus hit in summer.  The flu season is just taking off here and infections are on the rise, working their way north as the continent gets colder and wetter.  Of course, panic stations amongst the media types will set in but they shouldn't.  Bone dry weather and 100 degree days don't see much sickness at all, particularly the kind that need people to sneeze.  When you look at the southern hemisphere countries which are doing well and the ones that aren't the pattern becomes pretty clear - if you're packed in like sardines then you've got trouble.  In the northern hemisphere it becomes pretty clear as well - urbanised areas with high density housing and lots of public transport fare far worse that suburban drivers.

By the time this year is out, COVID-19 will prove about twice as deadly as the 2018 flu season.  Contrary to that year it will be overwhelming concentrated in the 65+ and even moreso in the 75+.  And by next flu season, despite efforts to gin up anxiety, it will be virtually undetectable.  Just one more bug on the list of things that hit each year.  I'm surer of that than I am of a Johnnie victory this year and I'm pretty up on that already.

EDIT: Also happening here, easier because only 102 people have died of the bug, is that the number of deaths is actually going down.  They are being reclassified as dying from COVID as opposed to dying with or just presumed to have died because symptoms.  After that panic passed the media and gov't have turned to tracking infections, a decreasingly distressing measure of course.  We have 148 infected people and only two in the hospital in Victoria, the state I live in.  That's not due to magic sauce but summer.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on June 25, 2020, 09:28:40 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on June 25, 2020, 09:15:47 AM
Quote from: jamtod on June 25, 2020, 08:59:12 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on June 25, 2020, 02:22:39 AM
End state?  It's either a cure or normalized spread in the community like any other virus.  And with no vaccine guaranteed (still no vaccine for AIDS 40 years later or SARS I 10 years later) then widespread infection and dreaded herd immunity, like with every other FLI virus, is the only guaranteed end state.  The virus cannot be eradicated, nor should it as it's no small pox or MERS, so the challenge is to manage the spread balancing the restrictions against our ability to treat the symptoms.

Slowing the spread and flattening the curve has slowly morphed into stop the spread and eliminate the curve.  Those new goals are unattainable and should be rejected.

Something like what Australia achieved ought not be unattainable, and in parts of the US, the spread hasn't been slowed and the curve is rising rapidly for hospitalizations.
A vaccine is likely (I am hopeful, but it may take some time) and herd immunity from infection has never truly been the path for dealing with something like this (I welcome a counter-example) and would entail the kinds of "dooms-day" death modeling that you've ranted against (perhaps over a slightly longer timeline as the spread has been slowed and nearly stopped in many places), not to mention there is no guarantee how long-lasting that immunity is.

A counter example that herd immunity is viable?  Every other coronavirus work?  Rhinovirus?  Influenza?  Every epi/pandemic that's every happened?


I'm talking herd immunity through infection. We achieve some degree for influenza through the vaccine, but immunity fades and it comes back annually anyway. Rhinovirus is not deadly and I see no indication that herd immunity has ever been close with that. Herd immunity through infection is just not a viable end game, unless you are willing to accept widespread infection and death (or you assume that the death rates and long-term repercussions are minimal, which is your prerogative)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 25, 2020, 02:17:18 PM
I think comparing C19 to HIV/AIDS in terms of finding a vaccine isn't exactly a fair comparison. C19 is like a lot of other viruses of it's kind ... so I suspect a vaccine is rather attainable. And it will likely be just like the flu (in the only comparison I'll ever make) in that there will be a yearly vaccine to help stave off whatever versions of the virus that may exist.

That all said, SARS broke out in 2003 ... it didn't have nearly the same infection rate and interestingly a vaccine was never created. It was found successful in animals, but it also had a side effect of creating an immune disease, so it was never tested in humans and the virus eventually disappeared. So, who knows ...

HIV/AIDS is such a different beast. I just don't think using it as a comparison is good because these two things aren't even related in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 25, 2020, 02:58:35 PM

They're in final stage 3 human trials of a vaccine, that's promising enough the CDC has already begun to cultivate doses, with 100m to be ready by Jan 1st.  Pretty much as soon as the trials prove themselves, they'll be able to starting vaccinating people.  We just have to make it until then with no major hiccups.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on June 25, 2020, 03:48:06 PM
JWU-Denver is closing next summer, bummer for the SCAC.

www.providencejournal.com/news/20200625/johnson--wales-to-close-campuses-in-florida-colorado
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 25, 2020, 03:54:08 PM
Quote from: Caz Bombers on June 25, 2020, 03:48:06 PM
JWU-Denver is closing next summer, bummer for the SCAC.

www.providencejournal.com/news/20200625/johnson--wales-to-close-campuses-in-florida-colorado

That does suck.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on June 25, 2020, 04:12:52 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 25, 2020, 02:58:35 PM

They're in final stage 3 human trials of a vaccine, that's promising enough the CDC has already begun to cultivate doses, with 100m to be ready by Jan 1st.  Pretty much as soon as the trials prove themselves, they'll be able to starting vaccinating people.  We just have to make it until then with no major hiccups.
And you heard that where?  Who is "They"?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 25, 2020, 05:05:07 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on June 25, 2020, 04:12:52 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on June 25, 2020, 02:58:35 PM

They're in final stage 3 human trials of a vaccine, that's promising enough the CDC has already begun to cultivate doses, with 100m to be ready by Jan 1st.  Pretty much as soon as the trials prove themselves, they'll be able to starting vaccinating people.  We just have to make it until then with no major hiccups.
And you heard that where?  Who is "They"?

That was a Fauci presser, about ten days ago, or so?  I'd have to go check the specifics.  Obviously a guy like that isn't going to promise anything, but if they're willing to put the resources towards a vaccine before trials are done, they're pretty confident it'll come out ok.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 25, 2020, 05:30:17 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on June 25, 2020, 09:15:47 AM

[...]  In the northern hemisphere it becomes pretty clear as well - urbanised areas with high density housing and lots of public transport fare far worse that suburban drivers.

By the time this year is out, COVID-19 will prove about twice as deadly as the 2018 flu season.  Contrary to that year it will be overwhelming concentrated in the 65+ and even moreso in the 75+.  And by next flu season, despite efforts to gin up anxiety, it will be virtually undetectable.  Just one more bug on the list of things that hit each year.  I'm surer of that than I am of a Johnnie victory this year and I'm pretty up on that already.

EDIT: Also happening here, easier because only 102 people have died of the bug, is that the number of deaths is actually going down.  They are being reclassified as dying from COVID as opposed to dying with or just presumed to have died because symptoms.  After that panic passed the media and gov't have turned to tracking infections, a decreasingly distressing measure of course.  We have 148 infected people and only two in the hospital in Victoria, the state I live in.  That's not due to magic sauce but summer.

Well, in Texas, where public transit is non-existent, people primarily live in single family housing, and oh, it's summer with temperatures already having reached into the 100s, over 6,000 new cases were reported just today, so you might want to be careful about stating your single-country observations as fact where the whole world is concerned.   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 25, 2020, 08:36:07 PM
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

Quote
For 7% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.5 additional conditions or causes per death.

Or, in other words, only 1 out of 14 CV deaths were clearly covid cause.  This is good news, people.  There is an extremely handy interactive chart on the CDC site which I encourage you to look at.  The risks are clear.

And another very informative chart here.  I encourage you to have a look at your favourite states and see which ones have been managing the challenge well and which haven't.  Fingers cross you're in a well managed location.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 25, 2020, 08:55:06 PM
The good news keeps rolling in.  Today's announcement from the CDC.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-says-covid-19-cases-u-s-may-be-10-n1232134

Quote
"Our best estimate right now is that for every case that's reported, there actually are 10 other infections," CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said on a call with reporters Thursday.

The assessment comes from looking at blood samples across the country for the presence of antibodies to the virus. For every confirmed case of COVID-19, 10 more people had antibodies, Redfield said, referring to proteins in the blood that indicate whether a person's immune system has previously fought off the coronavirus.

This is particularly good news because it means the virus is at least ten times less deadly than previously thought.  This is headed in the best direction.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 25, 2020, 09:01:04 PM
And the good hits keep rolling with this research.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.21.20132449v1

Quote
Results. All index patients recovered from a mild COVID-19. They all developed anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and a significant T cell response detectable up to 69 days after symptom onset. Six of the eight contacts reported COVID-19 symptoms within 1 to 7 days after the index patients but all were SARS-CoV-2 seronegative. Six out of eight contacts developed a SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell response against structural and/or accessory proteins that lasts up to 80 days post symptom onset suggesting a past SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Conclusion. Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 can induce virus-specific T cell responses without seroconversion. T cell responses may be more sensitive indicators of SARS-Co-V-2 exposure than antibodies. Our results indicate that epidemiological data relying only on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may lead to a substantial underestimation of prior exposure to the virus.

In other words, our immune system's first line of defense, t-cells, seem able to fight off infection without the need for antibody development.  This initial study found that 6 of 8 family members of an infected person reported symptoms but developed no antibodies while having elevated t-cell counts.  If additional studies confirm these results then we may find the CDC increasing the multiple of undetected exposures by 3x.  More good news on the direction this pandemic is heading.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 26, 2020, 02:53:03 PM
Yes all good news ... now if we can see the death rate start dropping below 5% that would be ideal. Yes, not everyone has been tested, but it has been holding pretty firm above 5% for most of this pandemic. We need more testing and even a solid anti-body test to make things look better.

BTW to those who don't understand why some deaths are still marked as C19, that is standard operating procedure. If someone dies from a disease or infection they normally would have beaten off, but because they have HIV/AIDS their system was compromised ... they died of HIV/AIDS (you don't technically die of HIV/AIDS). If someone ides of a virus or something, but has an auto immune disorder, the auto immune disorder is the cause because it kept them from being able to fight whatever it was off. If someone is in an auto accident and it causes a heart attack, the auto accident is the cause of the death.

With C19 it does a wonder on the lungs and other internal organs and thus affects the immune system. If someone dies of pneumonia they likely wouldn't have been afflicted with or couldn't fight off because of C19 ... they died of C19.

That is how it works for everything.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 26, 2020, 06:15:14 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 26, 2020, 02:53:03 PM
Yes all good news ... now if we can see the death rate start dropping below 5% that would be ideal. Yes, not everyone has been tested, but it has been holding pretty firm above 5% for most of this pandemic. We need more testing and even a solid anti-body test to make things look better.

BTW to those who don't understand why some deaths are still marked as C19, that is standard operating procedure. If someone dies from a disease or infection they normally would have beaten off, but because they have HIV/AIDS their system was compromised ... they died of HIV/AIDS (you don't technically die of HIV/AIDS). If someone ides of a virus or something, but has an auto immune disorder, the auto immune disorder is the cause because it kept them from being able to fight whatever it was off. If someone is in an auto accident and it causes a heart attack, the auto accident is the cause of the death.

With C19 it does a wonder on the lungs and other internal organs and thus affects the immune system. If someone dies of pneumonia they likely wouldn't have been afflicted with or couldn't fight off because of C19 ... they died of C19.

That is how it works for everything.

Nice spin.  Also wrong.

Apparently you feel that mere assertion is the only thing required to support a claim.  Makes for easy discussions, I guess.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 26, 2020, 06:41:35 PM
I'm going to assume you didn't like the comment about how C19 is labeled on deaths...

As one with family and friends in the medical field especially a father who besides being a general surgeon and a family practitioner is also a medical examiner. I ain't spinning anything. Simply telling you what people with ten-times more experience and knowledge than I explain it.

I am sorry you don't like it. But this is how it works. One doesn't die of C19 as much as you die from what it does to other parts of the body and how that then allows things like pneumonia to invade and kill a person. It sucks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 27, 2020, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 26, 2020, 06:41:35 PM
I'm going to assume you didn't like the comment about how C19 is labeled on deaths...

As one with family and friends in the medical field especially a father who besides being a general surgeon and a family practitioner is also a medical examiner. I ain't spinning anything. Simply telling you what people with ten-times more experience and knowledge than I explain it.

I am sorry you don't like it. But this is how it works. One doesn't die of C19 as much as you die from what it does to other parts of the body and how that then allows things like pneumonia to invade and kill a person. It sucks.
Thanks for the disclosure of your family background.

Falling COVID-19 Death Rates

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/06/25/falling-covid-19-death-rates-are-even-smaller-than-they-look/

From the article...
QuoteWhile this Wuhan bug is dangerous, it is likely not as deadly as advertised. The CDC's own estimate for what's called the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR), made early this month, is about 0.26%. The regular flu, by comparison, has an IFR of about 0.1%. So using the government's own likely inflated COVID-19 death data, the IFR for the Chinese-origin virus is about that of a very bad seasonal flu — and not the 3.4% first estimated.

June 24 CDC update (N.B. This link is current for this week.)  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

(Disclosure -- Dr Timothy Craig Allen, cited in the article, is a good friend of mine.)

The virus is becoming less virulent.

What we have seen with the COVID-19 in controlled situations is this.

Diamond Princess -- Quarantined in Japan. 3711 passengers and crew; 712 infected  14 die (1.8% of infected; Mortality 0.377% of all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_on_Diamond_Princess

USS Roosevelt -- 62% developed antiboides. 1 fatality among 4800,

Now Dr Matteo Bassetti at San Martino Hospital in Genova says the virus is becoming less virulent. Dr Bassetti said that patients in April are not as sick as patients seen earlier in the pandemic.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/06/22/italian-infectious-disease-expert-says-covid-19-has-weakened-on-its-own-and-it-could-even-disappear-937930 (I am quoting BizPac Review to get around the paywall at the Telegraph.)

These viruses mutate and become less lethal. It does a virus no good to kill its host before it can infect someone else.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/20/coronavirus-has-downgraded-tiger-wild-cat-could-die-without/

Nevertheless, the social devastation has been worse than the disease. Overall mortality rates thru week #34 in essentially the same as the previous 4 years and are essentially at actuarially predicted numbers.



For several of my fellow posters, I offer this research as a prospective treatment.  Remember when President Trump talked about "disinfection". I found this article.

Possibility of Disinfection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in Human Respiratory Tract by Controlled Ethanol Vapor Inhalation

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Possibility-of-Disinfection-of-SARS-CoV-2-in-Human-Shintake/1b94ee20e6cd598f5c44c1ad5b5ec0cad116e2a3

Hmm, a tome of Sagerian proportions...

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 27, 2020, 02:45:26 PM
Quote from: Caz Bombers on June 25, 2020, 03:48:06 PM
JWU-Denver is closing next summer, bummer for the SCAC.

www.providencejournal.com/news/20200625/johnson--wales-to-close-campuses-in-florida-colorado

And announced yesterday that athletics have been terminated effective immediately:   https://denver.jwuathletics.com/general/2020-21/releases/20200626qrmdyx

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on June 27, 2020, 05:52:58 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 27, 2020, 01:13:55 AM
Hmm, a tome of Sagerian proportions...

... with a Quillmanian number of URL links embedded in it. ;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on June 27, 2020, 06:08:16 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 27, 2020, 01:13:55 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 26, 2020, 06:41:35 PM
I'm going to assume you didn't like the comment about how C19 is labeled on deaths...

As one with family and friends in the medical field especially a father who besides being a general surgeon and a family practitioner is also a medical examiner. I ain't spinning anything. Simply telling you what people with ten-times more experience and knowledge than I explain it.

I am sorry you don't like it. But this is how it works. One doesn't die of C19 as much as you die from what it does to other parts of the body and how that then allows things like pneumonia to invade and kill a person. It sucks.
Thanks for the disclosure of your family background.

Falling COVID-19 Death Rates

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/06/25/falling-covid-19-death-rates-are-even-smaller-than-they-look/

From the article...
QuoteWhile this Wuhan bug is dangerous, it is likely not as deadly as advertised. The CDC's own estimate for what's called the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR), made early this month, is about 0.26%. The regular flu, by comparison, has an IFR of about 0.1%. So using the government's own likely inflated COVID-19 death data, the IFR for the Chinese-origin virus is about that of a very bad seasonal flu — and not the 3.4% first estimated.

June 24 CDC update (N.B. This link is current for this week.)  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

(Disclosure -- Dr Timothy Craig Allen, cited in the article, is a good friend of mine.)

The virus is becoming less virulent.

What we have seen with the COVID-19 in controlled situations is this.

Diamond Princess -- Quarantined in Japan. 3711 passengers and crew; 712 infected  14 die (1.8% of infected; Mortality 0.377% of all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_on_Diamond_Princess

USS Roosevelt -- 62% developed antiboides. 1 fatality among 4800,

Now Dr Matteo Bassetti at San Martino Hospital in Genova says the virus is becoming less virulent. Dr Bassetti said that patients in April are not as sick as patients seen earlier in the pandemic.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/06/22/italian-infectious-disease-expert-says-covid-19-has-weakened-on-its-own-and-it-could-even-disappear-937930 (I am quoting BizPac Review to get around the paywall at the Telegraph.)

These viruses mutate and become less lethal. It does a virus no good to kill its host before it can infect someone else.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/20/coronavirus-has-downgraded-tiger-wild-cat-could-die-without/

Nevertheless, the social devastation has been worse than the disease. Overall mortality rates thru week #34 in essentially the same as the previous 4 years and are essentially at actuarially predicted numbers.



For several of my fellow posters, I offer this research as a prospective treatment.  Remember when President Trump talked about "disinfection". I found this article.

Possibility of Disinfection of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in Human Respiratory Tract by Controlled Ethanol Vapor Inhalation

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Possibility-of-Disinfection-of-SARS-CoV-2-in-Human-Shintake/1b94ee20e6cd598f5c44c1ad5b5ec0cad116e2a3

Hmm, a tome of Sagerian proportions...

Please don't take medical advice from  a professor in the department of PHYSICS at Okinawa University.  Hoping this "scholarly" article was done tongue-in-cheek
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 27, 2020, 06:28:25 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/25/oxford-university-analysis-coronavirus-death-rate-hospitals/

Eventually folks will start accepting this good news.

Quote
The risk of dying from coronavirus after being admitted to hospital has fallen dramatically since the beginning of April, analysis by Oxford University has shown.

Around the peak of Britain's epidemic, six per cent of people hospitalised with Covid-19 died from the virus but figures show that by June 15, just 1.5 per cent died.

Experts at Oxford University say doctors may be becoming better at treating people with the virus. There are now several drugs in use or being trialled in the NHS that appear to have an impact on survival.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2020, 08:57:12 PM
The reality here in this hemisphere doesn't really lend itself to good news.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on June 27, 2020, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2020, 08:57:12 PM
The reality here in this hemisphere doesn't really lend itself to good news.
Death numbers haven't spiked yet, but hospitalization is nearing capacity in some places so it's only a matter of time
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 27, 2020, 09:36:01 PM
Death rate is coming down, which I would call good news, because we know more about COVID now than we did three months ago and there are some treatment regimens that have shown some success at improving patient outcomes.  Younger people are responsible for much of the recent increase in cases, and younger people do a better job at fending off the worst impacts of the disease than the older people who were the majority of early diagnoses.   More people are still going to die and with uncontrolled increases in caseloads more will die as care becomes harder to come by.

Even with a decrease in overall death rate, the fact of the matter is that there are thousands upon thousands of Americans suffering in ICUs, a number that increases daily, running up ridiculous amounts of debt, many of whom will suffer the effects of this disease even if they recovered from the illness.  There is no overall improvement in sight when the whole country is taken into consideration, despite the excellent work done in the northern tier of states, because the south (and some of the west) refused to take the disease seriously and opened things back up when they had no business doing so. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 28, 2020, 05:32:10 PM
Quote from: jamtod on June 27, 2020, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2020, 08:57:12 PM
The reality here in this hemisphere doesn't really lend itself to good news.
Death numbers haven't spiked yet, but hospitalization is nearing capacity in some places so it's only a matter of time

Where?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 28, 2020, 05:36:25 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 27, 2020, 09:36:01 PM
Death rate is coming down, which I would call good news, because we know more about COVID now than we did three months ago and there are some treatment regimens that have shown some success at improving patient outcomes.  Younger people are responsible for much of the recent increase in cases, and younger people do a better job at fending off the worst impacts of the disease than the older people who were the majority of early diagnoses.   More people are still going to die and with uncontrolled increases in caseloads more will die as care becomes harder to come by.

Even with a decrease in overall death rate, the fact of the matter is that there are thousands upon thousands of Americans suffering in ICUs, a number that increases daily, running up ridiculous amounts of debt, many of whom will suffer the effects of this disease even if they recovered from the illness.  There is no overall improvement in sight when the whole country is taken into consideration, despite the excellent work done in the northern tier of states, because the south (and some of the west) refused to take the disease seriously and opened things back up when they had no business doing so. 

Show me the data linking stay at home relaxations with increased hospitalisations.  Also, can you explain why the relaxations lead to increased hospitalizations?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on June 28, 2020, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on June 28, 2020, 05:32:10 PM
Quote from: jamtod on June 27, 2020, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2020, 08:57:12 PM
The reality here in this hemisphere doesn't really lend itself to good news.
Death numbers haven't spiked yet, but hospitalization is nearing capacity in some places so it's only a matter of time

Where?
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/18/texas-coronavirus-hospitalizations/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.azcentral.com/amp/3249937001
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 28, 2020, 05:51:24 PM
Again, I would like to draw your attention to the CDC data on excess deaths.  Back to normal.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

And Europe is... back to normal.

https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps


There are two reasons that infections are increasing and mortality outcomes remain normal:

1. Despite our best efforts to kill them off, the vulnerable in nursing homes and other long term care are better protected as staff learn better procedures and policy makers stop trying to kill them.

2. Doctors are become far more skilled with experience and treatments have vastly improved, along with drug interventions.  It turns out that just as with other flu-like illnesses, treatments are subtle and benefit from experience.  A big problem in March and April was cross infection of the already sick in hospital.  It takes time to learn how to keep infections spreading in hospital.  Italy really suffered this and the rest of the world learned from their unfortunate experience, but still needed to learn more.  Now is much better.

Oxford University has been considering the fact that the death rate is declining much faster than the hospitalisation rate and discussed the reasons that may have driven this.  Although they don't draw a firm conclusion (recommending more study) all of their ideas can be summarised simply: more experience with the illness and better treatment decisions.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/declining-death-rate-from-covid-19-in-hospitals-in-england/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 28, 2020, 05:56:53 PM
Quote from: jamtod on June 28, 2020, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on June 28, 2020, 05:32:10 PM
Quote from: jamtod on June 27, 2020, 08:59:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 27, 2020, 08:57:12 PM
The reality here in this hemisphere doesn't really lend itself to good news.
Death numbers haven't spiked yet, but hospitalization is nearing capacity in some places so it's only a matter of time

Where?
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/18/texas-coronavirus-hospitalizations/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.azcentral.com/amp/3249937001

No, where are they nearing capacity?  Those articles say hospitalisations are increasing but that Houston article says there is plenty of capacity.  One hospital is almost full in Houston, it points out, but the city overall remains at 20% capacity.  And although hard to find in the Arizona article, it says that are running at half capacity and ICU usage is decreasing. So where are they actually nearing capacity?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on June 28, 2020, 06:02:09 PM
I am quite capable of accepting that there are positive signs in places, that treatment has improved drastically, and that the biggest concern for death is within the elderly and vulnerable populations AND also that there are a serious number of unknowns still about the immune response (antibody levels showing very low for asymptomatic cases), alarming numbers of new cases and hospitalizations, and the actual COVID sickness does not seem like much fun for people I have known with it, regardless of death or hospitalization, particularly with family members that fit into vulnerable categories.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 28, 2020, 06:03:24 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on June 26, 2020, 06:41:35 PM
I'm going to assume you didn't like the comment about how C19 is labeled on deaths...

As one with family and friends in the medical field especially a father who besides being a general surgeon and a family practitioner is also a medical examiner. I ain't spinning anything. Simply telling you what people with ten-times more experience and knowledge than I explain it.

I am sorry you don't like it. But this is how it works. One doesn't die of C19 as much as you die from what it does to other parts of the body and how that then allows things like pneumonia to invade and kill a person. It sucks.

Ok.  I guess I need to provide the actual facts to this discussion.  I notice this tends to be a one way flow of commitment to this debate.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/declining-death-rate-from-covid-19-in-hospitals-in-england/

Quote
On June 12, Tennessee's number of COVID-19 cases rose sharply once again. It jumped to 21,126 cases — up nearly 800 from the day before.

But the state department of health is now including "probable" cases in that total number, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control.

As to hollow appeals to authority, if I say my brother-in-law is one of the 50 leading global experts on COVID drug treatment regimes does that give my posts more weight?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 28, 2020, 11:33:44 PM
Oz,

The article that caught my eye early was by Didier Raoult.

He uploaded a copy of the paper to Google Drive in mid March, which I downloaded.

His regimen of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin killed the virus such that patients were sero-negative on Day-6.  (p< 0.001) There was no virus detected in his patients who took that regimen versus controls who did not wish to have his regimen and patients from another hospital who did not have the regimen. Here is the link to the article.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32205204/

What is your brother seeing with respect to Hydrozychloroquine/Azithromycin +/- oral Zinc?  Thanks
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 28, 2020, 11:36:20 PM
Actually Oline89, that is the basic science that is foundation for the clinical trials.  I thought that the denizens of the MIAC boards would be a good place to start patient recruitment.

;)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on June 29, 2020, 03:14:21 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 28, 2020, 11:33:44 PM
Oz,

The article that caught my eye early was by Didier Raoult.

He uploaded a copy of the paper to Google Drive in mid March, which I downloaded.

His regimen of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin killed the virus such that patients were sero-negative on Day-6.  (p< 0.001) There was no virus detected in his patients who took that regimen versus controls who did not wish to have his regimen and patients from another hospital who did not have the regimen. Here is the link to the article.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32205204/

What is your brother seeing with respect to Hydrozychloroquine/Azithromycin +/- oral Zinc?  Thanks

This Didier Raoult?
https://forbetterscience.com/2020/04/22/chloroquine-witchdoctor-didier-raoult-barking-mad-and-dangerous/amp/
Or if you are up for a long read:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/magazine/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on June 29, 2020, 10:05:49 AM
A couple of things from New England Journal of Medicine

https://www.nejm.org/coronavirus?query=main_nav_lg

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2017594?query=featured_home
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on June 29, 2020, 10:09:39 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on June 29, 2020, 10:05:49 AM
A couple of things from New England Journal of Medicine

https://www.nejm.org/coronavirus?query=main_nav_lg

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2017594?query=featured_home

Looks like an audio interview, without a commute, not sure I'll prioritize listening, would you care to give a cliff notes summary of the observations?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 29, 2020, 01:30:57 PM
jamtod, yes, that Didier Raoult.

Did you read (can you read) the article that I cited? 

Didier has 1863 citations of peer-reviewed articles from his research in PubMed as of today.  Dr Anthony Fauci has only 296.

Didier is one of the few people in the world who can take on Big Pharma. Didier showed that both Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin were beneficial in lab studies against SARS and MERS.  Even Dr Fauci was thought that those drugs might work back in 2013 against the coronavirus, MERS.

In April, Sermo, "the largest healthcare data collection company and global social platform for physicians, leveraged its capabilities to publish results of a COVID-19 study with more than 6,200 physicians in 30 countries." Hydroxychloroquine was the #1 choice of 37% of physicians of 15 choices listed. Azithromycin (32%) was #2. From the news release cited below, ..."Outside the U.S., hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients," the survey found.

https://www.sermo.com/press-releases/largest-statistically-significant-study-by-6200-multi-country-physicians-on-covid-19-uncovers-treatment-patterns-and-puts-pandemic-in-context/

Gilead Pharmaceutical announced the pricing structure for Remdesivir today; $3120 for the short course. $5720 for the full course of treatment.  And the FDA only approved the drug for use with COVID-19 because it shortened hospital stays from 15 days to 11 days. It was not shown to save more lives! Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin and Zinc costs less than $30 for the full treatment. Remdesivir only costs $9 to make.

No wonder Big Pharma, Big Health, and Big Everyone Else chasing the Big Dollars were out to get him!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on June 29, 2020, 01:58:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 29, 2020, 01:30:57 PM
jamtod, yes, that Didier Raoult.

Did you read (can you read) the article that I cited? 

Didier has 1863 citations of peer-reviewed articles from his research in PubMed as of today.  Dr Anthony Fauci has only 296.

Didier is one of the few people in the world who can take on Big Pharma. Didier showed that both Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin were beneficial in lab studies against SARS and MERS.  Even Dr Fauci was thought that those drugs might work back in 2013 against the coronavirus, MERS.

In April, Sermo, "the largest healthcare data collection company and global social platform for physicians, leveraged its capabilities to publish results of a COVID-19 study with more than 6,200 physicians in 30 countries." Hydroxychloroquine was the #1 choice of 37% of physicians of 15 choices listed. Azithromycin (32%) was #2. From the news release cited below, ..."Outside the U.S., hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients," the survey found.

https://www.sermo.com/press-releases/largest-statistically-significant-study-by-6200-multi-country-physicians-on-covid-19-uncovers-treatment-patterns-and-puts-pandemic-in-context/

Gilead Pharmaceutical announced the pricing structure for Remdesivir today; $3120 for the short course. $5720 for the full course of treatment.  And the FDA only approved the drug for use with COVID-19 because it shortened hospital stays from 15 days to 11 days. It was not shown to save more lives! Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin and Zinc costs less than $30 for the full treatment. Remdesivir only costs $9 to make.

No wonder Big Pharma, Big Health, and Big Everyone Else chasing the Big Dollars were out to get him!

Yes. I can read. Dude rejects the idea of controlled studies and used a sample size of between 20-30 to draw conclusions, after 6 days. If patients died or their conditions worsened, they "fell out of contact" and were excluded from the study. The dude is a quack, but even he has scaled back on his enthusiasm for HCQ.

Also, he has so many citations because he's notorious for putting his name on all the work that comes out of his group. Not uncommon, but the dude must be a speed reader and never sleep to even read (much less give any insightful feedback) on all of the "studies" he tacks his name onto.

Did you read the articles I cited?

Some additional clarification on the sermo release:
https://fullfact.org/health/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-treatment/

No doubt there are problems with Big Pharma, but believing that doesn't mean I have to accept faulty claims about HCQ or conspiracy theories about COVID being fake news.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on June 29, 2020, 02:30:15 PM
Quote from: jamtod on June 29, 2020, 01:58:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 29, 2020, 01:30:57 PM
jamtod, yes, that Didier Raoult.

Did you read (can you read) the article that I cited? 

Didier has 1863 citations of peer-reviewed articles from his research in PubMed as of today.  Dr Anthony Fauci has only 296.

Didier is one of the few people in the world who can take on Big Pharma. Didier showed that both Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin were beneficial in lab studies against SARS and MERS.  Even Dr Fauci was thought that those drugs might work back in 2013 against the coronavirus, MERS.

In April, Sermo, "the largest healthcare data collection company and global social platform for physicians, leveraged its capabilities to publish results of a COVID-19 study with more than 6,200 physicians in 30 countries." Hydroxychloroquine was the #1 choice of 37% of physicians of 15 choices listed. Azithromycin (32%) was #2. From the news release cited below, ..."Outside the U.S., hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients," the survey found.

https://www.sermo.com/press-releases/largest-statistically-significant-study-by-6200-multi-country-physicians-on-covid-19-uncovers-treatment-patterns-and-puts-pandemic-in-context/

Gilead Pharmaceutical announced the pricing structure for Remdesivir today; $3120 for the short course. $5720 for the full course of treatment.  And the FDA only approved the drug for use with COVID-19 because it shortened hospital stays from 15 days to 11 days. It was not shown to save more lives! Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin and Zinc costs less than $30 for the full treatment. Remdesivir only costs $9 to make.

No wonder Big Pharma, Big Health, and Big Everyone Else chasing the Big Dollars were out to get him!

Yes. I can read. Dude rejects the idea of controlled studies and used a sample size of between 20-30 to draw conclusions, after 6 days. If patients died or their conditions worsened, they "fell out of contact" and were excluded from the study. The dude is a quack, but even he has scaled back on his enthusiasm for HCQ.

Also, he has so many citations because he's notorious for putting his name on all the work that comes out of his group. Not uncommon, but the dude must be a speed reader and never sleep to even read (much less give any insightful feedback) on all of the "studies" he tacks his name onto.

Did you read the articles I cited?

Some additional clarification on the sermo release:
https://fullfact.org/health/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-chloroquine-treatment/

No doubt there are problems with Big Pharma, but believing that doesn't mean I have to accept faulty claims about HCQ or conspiracy theories about COVID being fake news.

Pretty good studies here:  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on June 29, 2020, 03:04:45 PM
There are currently 230 studies on HCQ in the world out of 2351 total studies as of  today.
I hope they aren't taking resources away  from other possibilities.  They are listed here.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Hydroxychloroquine&cond=COVID-19

Not D3, but related to football.  The Wake Forest coach is isolating from his wife for the season.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/wake-forest-coach-dave-clawson-to-isolate-from-wife-during-season-because-of-covid-19-concerns/

jamtod,

I listened to the podcast.  It mostly related to how experts review all of the daily input they are getting and how NEJM has to accelerate their reviews but still keep quality.  For us mortals they said to watch the newspapers and read long form articles in places like The Atlantic and the New Yorker.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on June 29, 2020, 07:27:14 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 29, 2020, 01:30:57 PM


Did you read (can you read) the article that I cited?


Point of clarification...

My concern was whether you had access or were at an institution who could get you past the "paywall" of the medical journal to read the entire article.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on June 30, 2020, 02:16:49 AM
American Academy of Pediatrics speaks up.  The voices of 67,000 doctors lost in the din of people screaming on the Internets.

https://services.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/clinical-guidance/covid-19-planning-considerations-return-to-in-person-education-in-schools/

Quote
With the above principles in mind, the AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school...

Finally, policy makers should acknowledge that COVID-19 policies are intended to mitigate, not eliminate, risk. No single action or set of actions will completely eliminate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but implementation of several coordinated interventions can greatly reduce that risk.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 01, 2020, 09:19:20 AM
https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101f

Data from the TX dept of health and human services.

RE: Texas.  You'll need to click around the visualization to find the numbers but there are 55.3k hospital beds in TX, of which 41.5k are occupied (75% capacity).  Of those 41.5k bedded patients, 6.5k are with CV (12% of capacity and 16% of demand).  1.4k ICU beds and 5.5k ventilators remained unused.  So it appears that in TX, at least, the covid outbreak can get three times worse before TX must start using additional capacity facilities.

According to this hospital brief by the TX DHS, hospitals in Texas can surge to 20% additional capacity above published numbers before they need to create new facilities.  So thats an additional 11k beds and which brings TX's capacity to treat sick patients with current facilities to almost 5x current CV requirements.  And there are already designated overflow facilities (convention centers and the like, it seems) which add another 4.5k beds in the state if needed and which bring the capacity of the state to almost 6x the current levels.

https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/PPT_6.16.20.pdf

Interestingly, despite breathless reports of Houston's largest hospital reaching near 100% capacity, overall Houston remains only 78% full, pretty much in line with the overall state numbers.  It's almost as if Houston is following some foolish policy like routing all CV patients to designated facilities in order to reduce cross-contamination and the like.  Crazy.

I think TX will get past the challenge.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 01, 2020, 11:13:03 AM
 12%-14% of North Carolinians are CV anti-body positive based on widespread community testing.  1/3 of the way to herd immunity.

https://www.wakehealth.edu/Coronavirus/COVID-19-Community-Research-Partnership/Updates-and-Data
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on July 01, 2020, 12:26:20 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 01, 2020, 11:13:03 AM
12%-14% of North Carolinians are CV anti-body positive based on widespread community testing.  1/3 of the way to herd immunity.

https://www.wakehealth.edu/Coronavirus/COVID-19-Community-Research-Partnership/Updates-and-Data

Where have you seen herd immunity will only take 36-42% (3 times 12-14)? Everything I've seen is 65% or higher needed for herd immunity.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 01, 2020, 01:00:00 PM
No one knows for certain, of course, but this study of populations in Europe pegs it at just under 35% with significantly lower possible based on the actual super spreader effect and well-timed interventions (as if that will happen with the level heads making these lockdown decisions).

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.19.20104596v1.full.pdf

This one, also out of Europe in which the scientific community is far less politicised and less interested in point scoring on Covid (although very politicised like the scientific community on almost everything else), pegs it at 43%.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03085

There are many more, of course.  I get nothing useful from mainstream news and completely ignore it. Journalists are far too ordinary to understand and summarise complex issues plus they are driven by naked personal agendas I find.  Instead there are universities dedicated to publishing layman accessible discussions on all aspects of Covid. Oxford has been particularly good.  They push no agenda beyond supportable discussion.  There I read many things I want to see and many things I don't. But I never read emotional hype. Interestingly, when Imperial College in London initially said the CV would kill 2.2 million Americans back in mid March and started the whole panic ball rolling, Oxford said they're crazy and they can't believe everyone is accepting such an outlandish, unsubstantiated projections.  They've been on a mission to inform and not advocate ever since.

https://www.cebm.net/oxford-covid-19-evidence-service/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 01, 2020, 01:23:42 PM
The main thing to remember with this epidemic is that people are the same everywhere. All things being equal, outcomes in different populations will be the same. So when results and numbers differ it is incumbent upon the inquisitive mind to look for the variables. There are three which will have a huge effect.

1. Timing. Areas that were infected early are on the way down, areas that haven't been hit yet are on the way up. Spain, which at one point seemed about to break off and tip into the ocean, is down to a trickle of deaths per day despite infections still spreading. They are over the hump. Same with Italy. Our parts of the world are weeks away from being in the same spot. (not Australia, unfortunately, because we've had fewer than 8000 infections and only 100 deaths in the whole country it's been locked down so tight. As soon as international travel starts up again we'll light up like a Christmas tree.).

2. Treatment. The later you go up the curve, the better. Because the medical community is getting significantly better at treating this. Remember the war zone like drama from Italy and NYC just six weeks ago?  Where's that gone?  It's gone because doctors aren't panicking anymore. They are far better prepared. Those areas (anywhere other than NYC, basically) getting the bug now are so much better able to deal with treatment from the experience of those that went before.  Also, the vulnerable are better protected which is where the real gains are made.

3. Climate and standard of living. First world countries with great medical systems like ours are fortunate. Also, outside of a few high density urban areas, we don't live check to jowl either.  Plus, if you happened to be in the Southern Hemisphere and enjoying summer when this went wild then you have another bit of luck on top of that.  I'm glad I don't live in a second or third would country, that's for sure.

My point is, enlightened rationality is you friend. Emotional, agenda driven news cycles are not.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 01, 2020, 02:05:43 PM
Let's get back to "Future of Division III" ...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 01, 2020, 02:21:16 PM
No, this is OK. I have evaluated this a couple times in the past 24 hours to see if it needs to be split out, but COVID and higher ed are pretty intertwined right now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 01, 2020, 02:33:49 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 01, 2020, 02:21:16 PM
No, this is OK. I have evaluated this a couple times in the past 24 hours to see if it needs to be split out, but COVID and higher ed are pretty intertwined right now.

Oh I don't disagree that COVID is part of things, this just feels like it has delved into things that can be discussed elsewhere ... I just click in here to see the latest news in case I missed something. :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 01, 2020, 02:41:28 PM
COVID and D-III.

QuotePresidents' Growing Worry? Perceived Value of College

As Inside Higher Ed has surveyed college and university presidents several times over the course of this COVID-19-dominated spring, some things have remained constant. The leaders' sometimes conflicting concerns about student and employee health and institutional finances. Uncertainty about if and when they will reopen campuses and resume sports programs. Awareness that difficult financial decisions, driven by the recession, are ahead. ...



https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/college-presidents-increasingly-worried-about-perceived-value-degrees
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on July 01, 2020, 03:43:43 PM
Division III Membership Committee comments on return to sports:

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/division-iii-membership-committee-statement-return-sports

Basically, schools should exercise best judgement in participating and the committee is willing to consider waivers for institution that may fall under published participation minimums. 

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 01, 2020, 05:33:29 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 01, 2020, 02:21:16 PM
No, this is OK. I have evaluated this a couple times in the past 24 hours to see if it needs to be split out, but COVID and higher ed are pretty intertwined right now.

Thanks, Pat. I will insure my posts maintain a relevance to higher education.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on July 01, 2020, 09:48:00 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 01, 2020, 02:21:16 PM
No, this is OK. I have evaluated this a couple times in the past 24 hours to see if it needs to be split out, but COVID and higher ed are pretty intertwined right now.

Thanks for holding off, Pat. This has been a good discussion.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 01, 2020, 11:54:09 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on June 28, 2020, 11:33:44 PM
Oz,

The article that caught my eye early was by Didier Raoult.

He uploaded a copy of the paper to Google Drive in mid March, which I downloaded.

His regimen of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin killed the virus such that patients were sero-negative on Day-6.  (p< 0.001) There was no virus detected in his patients who took that regimen versus controls who did not wish to have his regimen and patients from another hospital who did not have the regimen. Here is the link to the article.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32205204/

What is your brother seeing with respect to Hydrozychloroquine/Azithromycin +/- oral Zinc?  Thanks

My b-i-l is smart enough to keep his mouth shut so I don't quote him as he knows I like to talk.  He has told me, so I'm assuming I'm ok to paraphrase, that the approach to CV will most likely prove successful will be drug cocktails not dissimilar to how we treat other unvaccinated viruses.  The fact that the fatality rate of the virus is falling so rapidly isn't due to some miracle drug or anything, just that front line doctors/nurses/etc are becoming experienced at recognising and dealing with a patient.  Things are getting out of control for individual cases much less frequently as people figure out how to manage a seriously sick person better (plus through experience there is significantly less cross contamination in hospitals where already sick people are picking up another infection).

As to hydro... he guesses that if it proves effective then it will most likely prove effective early in cases when combined with some other drugs (he's running some giant global study that is trying a few combinations to see how they work.  He's also running a second trial with another drug frequently in the news) and if the infection persist then different treatment options will enter the picture.  He has no idea at the moment whether it will prove effective or if effective in treating whether it will prove worthwhile for the cost. He mentioned on a national media interview (in another country) recently that the politization of hydro in the scientific community and media is the greatest hindrance to identifying when and if the drug actually has value.

I think that's safe enough that were someone to identify my b-i-l he doesn't get cancelled for knowing me, a heretic.

(And if we do end up with effective drug treatments then that will make DIII football all that more likely.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on July 02, 2020, 02:09:05 PM
OzJohnnie,

What does your b-i-l think of this.

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/01/coronavirus-autopsies-findings/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 02, 2020, 04:05:43 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on July 02, 2020, 02:09:05 PM
OzJohnnie,

What does your b-i-l think of this.

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/01/coronavirus-autopsies-findings/


He wouldn't give an opinion.  Too smart for that.

Me, dengue fever?  Sounds exotic and very scary.  A quick look around tells me it causes 40k deaths annually from 390 million infections so your odds are worse if you catch influenza.  I guess there's a reason it's classified a neglected tropical disease; there are far more things to worry about first.  But it sounds exotic and is from the tropics so that's very bad.  Better write a story on it and fail to mention dengue is rarely fatal.

I do know that Stevie Ray Vaughan's older brother Jimmie Vaughan has a great tune called the Dengue Woman Blues.  Great listening.

https://open.spotify.com/track/4OGyibX2nayDVCUfFN4u8x?si=TZ9kWrc1Sg6bBWSUT7OAKw
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on July 04, 2020, 12:39:15 PM
Article on COVID and college football at all levels.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/07/03/unable-afford-coronavirus-testing-some-colleges-are-canceling-football-season/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 04, 2020, 07:50:49 PM
QuoteI do know that Stevie Ray Vaughan's older brother Jimmie Vaughan has a great tune called the Dengue Woman Blues.  Great listening.

Thanks for the reference to some really superb Classical Music!

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on July 04, 2020, 09:00:30 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on July 04, 2020, 12:39:15 PM
Article on COVID and college football at all levels.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/07/03/unable-afford-coronavirus-testing-some-colleges-are-canceling-football-season/

Can't get by the paywall. Which ones are mentioned?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on July 04, 2020, 09:15:25 PM
Quote from: ADL70 on July 04, 2020, 09:00:30 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on July 04, 2020, 12:39:15 PM
Article on COVID and college football at all levels.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/07/03/unable-afford-coronavirus-testing-some-colleges-are-canceling-football-season/

Can't get by the paywall. Which ones are mentioned?
Some highlights.

Morehouse is one of six schools with NCAA sports that have canceled their fall seasons, along with Bowdoin, Williams College, Pratt Institute, the College of New Jersey and Massachusetts Boston.

"The real pressure at Division II and Division III is the revenue the school generates from having full-time enrolled students on campus," McBroom said. "The drive to play, for us, is not really a financial decision."

If weekly testing becomes a prerequisite for safely playing football and other sports this fall, as some experts and college officials have suggested, the vast majority of the hundreds of schools in Division II and III probably will have to cancel fall sports, officials said.

"Where the Power Five are and their ability to test on a weekly basis, that's just not our reality," said Jim Naumovich, commissioner of the Division II Great Lakes Valley Conference.

Wharton and others are following the potential for pooled or batch testing, a more cost-effective but less precise method. In batch testing, every player for a team would submit a sample — ideally, blood — that is combined, and all the samples are tested at once. The result would tell officials whether there were any infected athletes on a team and could be useful as a pregame test.

Jay Gardiner, commissioner of the Southern Athletic Association, a Division III conference based in Atlanta, said he is also following the developmental use of batch testing while discussing potential modifications to other sports to reduce the risk of infection during competition.

Among the potential changes, Gardiner said, are referees with mechanical whistles that don't require blowing, eliminating faceoffs in lacrosse and disinfecting balls in all sports routinely throughout competition.

"I don't feel like I'm a commissioner right now for anything other than covid-19," Gardiner said.

As athletes returned to some campuses in recent weeks, the potential difficulties of getting college players to follow strict distancing requirements also became clear.

At Chattanooga, Wharton said, all returning athletes were tested when they returned to campus, then told to self-quarantine for up to two days until results came back. About a dozen football players ignored the request and held an informal practice together, running routes and some offensive plays. When the results came back, one of the players tested positive. All of them are now in mandatory quarantine, awaiting the results of another round of tests.

"I don't think any athletic director or football coach in the country is sleeping very well right now," Wharton said.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 05, 2020, 01:01:58 AM
In case you haven't seen this elsewhere on the boards, here's a running list of college plans by the Chronicle of Higher Education.  It doesn't specifically list what each school is doing with sport but it does list each school's return to classroom (or not) plans along with links to statements the schools have made which may include sport.  It's updated every weekday and is currently tracking the statements from 1,075 colleges.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Here-s-a-List-of-Colleges-/248626
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on July 05, 2020, 08:04:57 AM
Thanks Grey Fox +K
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 05, 2020, 01:07:03 PM
I did tweet that reporter to thank him for interviewing a D-III commissioner, but also to point out that there are a lot more than six schools and direct him to our list: https://www.d3sports.com/notables/2020/06/schools-call-it-off-for-fall
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: justafan12 on July 06, 2020, 02:34:14 PM
I am fairly new to D3 football and I asked on this forum once about why no contact was allowed in spring football for D3.  One of the answers I got was that most D3 school did not have the training staff that would be required to maintain football along with the other spring sports.  Made sense to me.

Fast forward to 2020, and what IF (and I realize a big IF) the NCAA moves football to the spring; will D3 schools be able to handle the training staff needs for regular spring sports and now football?  I realize this may not happen but I have heard some suggesting that the NCAA may do this.

Any thoughts?


Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on July 06, 2020, 03:07:12 PM
Quote from: justafan12 on July 06, 2020, 02:34:14 PM
I am fairly new to D3 football and I asked on this forum once about why no contact was allowed in spring football for D3.  One of the answers I got was that most D3 school did not have the training staff that would be required to maintain football along with the other spring sports.  Made sense to me.

Fast forward to 2020, and what IF (and I realize a big IF) the NCAA moves football to the spring; will D3 schools be able to handle the training staff needs for regular spring sports and now football?  I realize this may not happen but I have heard some suggesting that the NCAA may do this.

Any thoughts?

I agree with you, most D3 schools don't have training staff (or Strength and Conditioning coaches) assigned just to one sport.  In the spring, the same athletic trainers cover spring sports, so trying to cover fall sports at the same time would be impossible.  Check out the ITH podcast last week, they interview the HC from Williams who alludes to this problem
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 06, 2020, 03:21:00 PM
Agreed -- this has been pretty widely discussed as a reason why moving fall sports to the spring is not so simple at the D-III level.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jekelish on July 06, 2020, 04:28:48 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 06, 2020, 03:21:00 PM
Agreed -- this has been pretty widely discussed as a reason why moving fall sports to the spring is not so simple at the D-III level.

Moving fall sports to the spring at the D3 level (and I'm sure at the D2 level as well, in many many cases) will be an absolute nightmare. I mean, if it keeps the doors open at smaller schools then people will find ways to make it work. But there are many, many, many small D3 schools that don't have remotely the proper support staff to adequately staff that many games in that tight a window.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on July 06, 2020, 04:33:49 PM
Yep. Not only are most D3 training staffs unequipped to handle attending to a football team playing out of season in the spring, on top of the spring sports that they already have to cover (and for which they always plan well in advance), but this is true of the rest of D3 support staffs as well. D3 Sports Information departments tend to be understaffed and have to work hard to make sure that all of their school's sports are duly covered; throwing football in on top of baseball, softball, track & field, lacrosse, etc., is going to make everybody suffer in that aspect of athletics as well. And then there's game staff. Do you know how many people it takes to put on a college football game, even at this level? It takes dozens, many (if not most) of whom don't work full-time for the school and who handle their game-day football responsibilities as a side gig. Good luck getting all of those people back together out of season and running an efficient, fully-staffed game crew.

I just can't see moving football to the spring as a viable possibility on the D3 level.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 06, 2020, 04:39:10 PM
Another thing to consider, there are a lot of DIII schools that rely just as heavily on lacrosse (men's and women's) as they do football. Trying to manage football and both lacrosses during the same season when it comes to locker rooms, training staffs, field usage, sports information staffs, etc. would be nearly impossible. Many schools split all of those items per the sports and combining them would be a nightmare logistically.

I just don't see it happening a vast majority of campuses with both sports.

Not to mention how bringing women's volleyball into the spring would affect the bulk of the basketball season and anyone who has men's volleyball (a rapidly growing sport). Or how soccers and field hockeys at schools that don't have four fields available would add to the nightmare.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: justafan12 on July 06, 2020, 06:01:00 PM
Yes, I only mentioned football but if they move that fall sport I would think they would move all fall sports.  So that's soccer, lacrosse, cross country, volleyball  and I am sure others that I am not aware of.  Would be a nightmare.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 06, 2020, 07:06:09 PM
Here's some good news for football and all DIII.  COVID-19 is on the edge of being declassified as an epidemic and instead moving to a regular virus in circulation.  It's been 21 days since cases spiked following the riots and protests and the mortality rate, not to mention daily fatality count, continues to decline.  Unless deaths suddenly reverse then in the next couple weeks, COVID will no longer be hitting the metrics required for classification as an epidemic (In my opinion reading the CDC update).

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

Quote
Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) decreased from 9.0% during week 25 to 5.9% during week 26, representing the tenth week of a declining percentage of deaths due to PIC. The percentage is currently at the epidemic threshold but will likely change as more death certificates are processed, particularly for recent weeks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 06, 2020, 08:05:44 PM
I'm not sure what you were reading... this was at the top of the page you linked to:

"Nationally, levels of influenza-like illness (ILI) and COVID-19-like illness (CLI) activity remain lower than peaks seen in March and April but are increasing in most regions. The percentage of specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, also increased from last week.  Mortality attributed to COVID-19 decreased compared to last week and is currently at the epidemic threshold but will likely increase as additional death certificates are processed."

So, they "remain lower than peaks seen in March and April but are increasing in most regions."

Deaths seem to be decreasing compared to the previous week (written last week), but "will likely increase as additional death certificates are processed."

So first off ... the entire length of last week saw increasing numbers of cases that the latest statement doesn't completely attribute (since it was written June 27). Secondly, did you see behavior of individuals this past weekend for the holiday? I suspect we see those numbers continue to increase.

BTW - I notice you mentioned "riots and protests," let's remember something very important: where the protests had their biggest numbers ... cases have not really increased. But states like Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and others who didn't see as much protests (and rioting, though they aren't the same) are the ones seeing skyrocketing numbers. Let's be sure we don't combine things that aren't necessarily related.

And per this information (I think they are using Johns Hopkins tracking information), we are absolutely above the max numbers seen in March and April (scroll down to see the US "new reported cases" graph): https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-us-cases-deaths/?itid=sf_coronavirus

Sadly ... things aren't improving that well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 06, 2020, 08:50:52 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 06, 2020, 08:05:44 PM
I'm not sure what you were reading... this was at the top of the page you linked to:

"Nationally, levels of influenza-like illness (ILI) and COVID-19-like illness (CLI) activity remain lower than peaks seen in March and April but are increasing in most regions. The percentage of specimens testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, also increased from last week.  Mortality attributed to COVID-19 decreased compared to last week and is currently at the epidemic threshold but will likely increase as additional death certificates are processed."

So, they "remain lower than peaks seen in March and April but are increasing in most regions."

Deaths seem to be decreasing compared to the previous week (written last week), but "will likely increase as additional death certificates are processed."

So first off ... the entire length of last week saw increasing numbers of cases that the latest statement doesn't completely attribute (since it was written June 27). Secondly, did you see behavior of individuals this past weekend for the holiday? I suspect we see those numbers continue to increase.

BTW - I notice you mentioned "riots and protests," let's remember something very important: where the protests had their biggest numbers ... cases have not really increased. But states like Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and others who didn't see as much protests (and rioting, though they aren't the same) are the ones seeing skyrocketing numbers. Let's be sure we don't combine things that aren't necessarily related.

And per this information (I think they are using Johns Hopkins tracking information), we are absolutely above the max numbers seen in March and April (scroll down to see the US "new reported cases" graph): https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-us-cases-deaths/?itid=sf_coronavirus

Sadly ... things aren't improving that well.

I quoted what I was reading.  I thought that was pretty clear, no?  And I quoted the likely to increase and even mentioned it in my comment.  If you have to treat my posts disingenuously in order to discuss them then I think you should admit your views are more emotional than factual.  How's that disingenuousness feel when you try it on for size?

First, let me ask this?  Did I quote incorrectly or misrepresent the statement that PIC is on the "epidemic threshold"?  No?  Ok, admit that first.

Second, did I quote that the CDC said deaths are "likely to increase"?  Yes. Ok, please acknowledge that I come to this discussion in good faith and demonstrate a commitment to transparent discussion.  After that, answer this question: what is the implication on epidemic classification if the rate of deaths continues to decline rather than reverse course?

Third, you say "where the protests had their biggest numbers ... cases have not really increased. But states like Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and others who didn't see as much protests (and rioting, though they aren't the same) are the ones seeing skyrocketing numbers".  I presented with complete transparency the information that prompted my post.  Let's see the evidence of behind your claim.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on July 07, 2020, 10:10:55 AM
MIT and Smith are out, by the way.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 07, 2020, 10:27:39 AM
A little context and clarity may be helpful for what the CDC defines as the "epidemic threshold."
This definition isn't provided on the linked page, but it's based on when deaths attributed to the pneumonia and flu are 1.645 standard deviations above the seasonal baseline, or 7.2%. Whether the referenced article presents good news or not depends on what parts you focus on I guess, but the epidemic threshold is one key factor to look at. I suspect we are far from out of the woods on this as fall approaches, cases are not under control, and regular flu season is on the horizon - but I also hope I'm wrong.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0404-covid19-surveillance-report.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on July 07, 2020, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 06, 2020, 07:06:09 PM
Here's some good news for football and all DIII.  COVID-19 is on the edge of being declassified as an epidemic and instead moving to a regular virus in circulation.  It's been 21 days since cases spiked following the riots and protests and the mortality rate, not to mention daily fatality count, continues to decline.  Unless deaths suddenly reverse then in the next couple weeks, COVID will no longer be hitting the metrics required for classification as an epidemic (In my opinion reading the CDC update).

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

Quote
Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) decreased from 9.0% during week 25 to 5.9% during week 26, representing the tenth week of a declining percentage of deaths due to PIC. The percentage is currently at the epidemic threshold but will likely change as more death certificates are processed, particularly for recent weeks.

Seriously? You mention "riots and protests", but nothing about reopening bars and restaurants and other gatherings. Yes, you are quite transparent about your agenda.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jaybird44 on July 08, 2020, 03:42:44 PM
Carnegie Mellon cancelling fall sports for 2020:

https://athletics.cmu.edu/generalnews/2019-2020/cmu2020fallstatement

Decision came after the UAA made this statement:

https://washubears.com/general/2020-21/releases/20200708fnfmig
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on July 08, 2020, 05:26:09 PM
Flabbergasted that no Texas schools have made a similar announcement.  The state just recorded a record high number of COVID deaths today (98) that was 60+% higher than the previous record (60) set just yesterday.  ~10K new cases for the second day running. 

https://tabexternal.dshs.texas.gov/t/THD/views/COVIDExternalQC/COVIDTrends?%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&%3Aembed=y
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 08, 2020, 07:05:36 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 08, 2020, 05:26:09 PM
Flabbergasted that no Texas schools have made a similar announcement.  The state just recorded a record high number of COVID deaths today (98) that was 60+% higher than the previous record (60) set just yesterday.  ~10K new cases for the second day running. 

https://tabexternal.dshs.texas.gov/t/THD/views/COVIDExternalQC/COVIDTrends?%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&%3Aembed=y

I think there are a lot of things going on that aren't necessarily associated with politics, government, etc.

One AD who is at a state school told me that lawsuits are certainly a concern, but in his state the max tort payout can be $450,000. For a lot of schools, that is worth the risk where as those not protected under that provision may not want to risk it - or have the endowment to skip the year and not be hurt too badly.

I suspect a lot of state schools are trying to figure out if they can push through despite the risks and still make it work.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Baldini on July 09, 2020, 06:34:49 AM
State - Damage Caps

Alabama
None
Alaska
Non-economic: $250,000. Wrongful death or a disability considered more than 70% disabling: $400,000
Arizona
Constitutionally prohibited
Arkansas
None
California
Non-economic $250,000
Colorado
Non-economic: $300,000. Total damages: $1 million
Connecticut
None
Delaware
None
District of Columbia
None
Florida
Non-Economic Damages: $500,000 for practitioners; $750,000 for non-practitioners; $1-million for permanent vegetative state or death
Georgia
Punitive: $250,000. Non-economic: $350,000 against providers. Additional $350,000 against each health care facility. Total maximum for non-economic: $1,050,000
Hawaii
Non-economic: $375,000 with exceptions for specific situations
Idaho
Non-economic $250,000, adjusted annually for inflation. Does not apply to wilful/reckless negligence or felonies.
Illinois
Struck down in 2010 - Non-economic: $500,000 against providers. $1,000,000 against hospitals
Indiana
$1,250,000 total if it occurred after 1999. Providers liable for a maximum of $250,000 with the rest to be paid through state's Patient Compensation Fund.
Iowa
None
Kansas
Non-economic: $250,000
Kentucky
None
Louisiana
$500,000 total. Health care providers liable for only $100,000 with the rest paid by compensation fund
Maine
Non-economic: $500,000 on wrongful death
Maryland
Non-economic: $740,000 as of 2015 to increase $15,000 annually. Applies to all claims and to all defendants from the same injury, or to wrongful death cases with only one plaintiff. If two wrongful death plaintiffs- $125% of current non-economic cap.
Massachusetts
Non-economic damages: $500,000 except in catastrophic injuries
Michigan
Non-economic: As of 2015 $444,900 or $794,500 for catastrophic/disabling injuries. Adjusts annually for inflation
Minnesota
None
Mississippi
Non-economic: $500,000/plaintiff
Missouri
Non-economic: $350,000; but cap ruled unconstitutional by Missouri Supreme Court in 2012
Montana
Non-economic: $250,000
Nebraska
$2,250,000 total except maximum of $500,000 for those qualifying entities under the Hospital-Medical Liability Act
Nevada
Non-economic: $350,000 except with limited exceptions
New Hampshire
None
New Jersey
Punitive: The greater of $350,000 or 5x compensatory damages.
New Mexico
Total: $600,000 except for past/future medical bills and punitive damages. Maximum provider liability is $200,000 with the rest paid by compensation fund.
New York
None
North Carolina
Non-economic: $500,000
North Dakota
Non-economic: $500,000 however any award above $250,000 may be reviewed by judge
Ohio
Non-economic damages: $250,000 or 3x economic damages up to $350,000/plaintiff, whichever is greater. $500,000 total for multiple plaintiffs. In catastrophic cases, $500,000 or $1,000,000
Oklahoma
Non-economic $350,000 for OB/ER cases or if there's an offer of judgment
Oregon
Non-economic: $500,000 for wrongful death. Other non-economic caps not constitutional
Pennsylvania
Punitive: Twice actual damages. Constitutional prohibition on caps of economic damages
Rhode Island
None
South Carolina
Punitive damages: $350,000 or 3x compensatory damages. Non-economic: $350,000 or facility against each provider adjusted annually for inflation. Total claim with multiple providers capped at $1,050,000
South Dakota
Non-economic $500,000
Tennessee
None
Texas
Non-economic damages: $250,000 physicians or providers. Additional $250,000 against each health care institution
Utah
Non-economic $450,000
Vermont
None
Virginia
Total damages $2,000,000 for acts occurring after July 2008.
Washington
None
West Virginia
Non-economic $250,000, adjusted for inflation annually with an absolute maximum of $375,000. In catastrophic cases, $500,000 adjusted annually up to a max of $750,000
Wisconsin
Non-economic $750,000 for medical negligence. Wrongful death actions: $500,000 for minors and $350,000 for adults
Wyoming
Constitutionally prohibited
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 09, 2020, 06:42:28 AM
Quote from: ADL70 on July 07, 2020, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 06, 2020, 07:06:09 PM
Here's some good news for football and all DIII.  COVID-19 is on the edge of being declassified as an epidemic and instead moving to a regular virus in circulation.  It's been 21 days since cases spiked following the riots and protests and the mortality rate, not to mention daily fatality count, continues to decline.  Unless deaths suddenly reverse then in the next couple weeks, COVID will no longer be hitting the metrics required for classification as an epidemic (In my opinion reading the CDC update).

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

Quote
Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) decreased from 9.0% during week 25 to 5.9% during week 26, representing the tenth week of a declining percentage of deaths due to PIC. The percentage is currently at the epidemic threshold but will likely change as more death certificates are processed, particularly for recent weeks.

Seriously? You mention "riots and protests", but nothing about reopening bars and restaurants and other gatherings. Yes, you are quite transparent about your agenda.

Uh, ok.  Does your comment also reveal a transparent agenda in that case?  Accusations of disingenuous motive aside, am I wrong?  Has it been 21 days since cases have spiked and still the rate of death has continued to decrease?

I'll answer my own question.  No, I'm not.  So here's a serious question: surely that's a good thing, no?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 09, 2020, 06:49:56 AM
Quote from: jamtod on July 07, 2020, 10:27:39 AM
A little context and clarity may be helpful for what the CDC defines as the "epidemic threshold."
This definition isn't provided on the linked page, but it's based on when deaths attributed to the pneumonia and flu are 1.645 standard deviations above the seasonal baseline, or 7.2%. Whether the referenced article presents good news or not depends on what parts you focus on I guess, but the epidemic threshold is one key factor to look at. I suspect we are far from out of the woods on this as fall approaches, cases are not under control, and regular flu season is on the horizon - but I also hope I'm wrong.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0404-covid19-surveillance-report.html

Wait, you imply I failed to provide context or clarity but then agree the CDC says the IPC viruses are on the epidemic threshold.  You wish to dispute whether that is good news or not, undoubtedly a reasonable discussion, but fail to point out my lack of context or clarity.  So where was it.

Surely the IPC situation moving from "epidemic" to "not epidemic" is good news?  It would be difficult to make an argument otherwise.  But to address the specific question of what is an epidemic I hit good to get the stages of sickness virility to bring clarity.

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/epidemic-vs-pandemic

Quote
Sporadic: When a disease occurs infrequently and irregularly.

Endemic: A constant presence and/or usual prevalence of a disease or infection within a geographic area. (Hyperendemic is a situation in which there are persistent, high levels of disease occurrence.)

Epidemic: A sudden increase in the number of cases of a disease—more than what's typically expected for the population in that area.

Pandemic: An epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, affecting a large number of people.

So, presumably, if the IPC diseases fall below epidemic levels they become endemic, or infecting at the usual prevalence.  Background noise.  Surely that would be a good development.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 09, 2020, 07:15:10 AM
Good news alert, particularly for school this fall with the student age demographic.  Empirical data on the improving skills of medical professionals in treating the infection.  Additionally benefited be the decreasing proportion of vulnerable people being infected as the virus becomes more... endemic.

From the BBC: Coronavirus death rate falling in hospitals (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53192532).  It's a good read.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50093535086_aa39476074_z.jpg)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 09, 2020, 09:05:45 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 09, 2020, 06:49:56 AM
Quote from: jamtod on July 07, 2020, 10:27:39 AM
A little context and clarity may be helpful for what the CDC defines as the "epidemic threshold."
This definition isn't provided on the linked page, but it's based on when deaths attributed to the pneumonia and flu are 1.645 standard deviations above the seasonal baseline, or 7.2%. Whether the referenced article presents good news or not depends on what parts you focus on I guess, but the epidemic threshold is one key factor to look at. I suspect we are far from out of the woods on this as fall approaches, cases are not under control, and regular flu season is on the horizon - but I also hope I'm wrong.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0404-covid19-surveillance-report.html

Wait, you imply I failed to provide context or clarity but then agree the CDC says the IPC viruses are on the epidemic threshold.  You wish to dispute whether that is good news or not, undoubtedly a reasonable discussion, but fail to point out my lack of context or clarity.  So where was it.

Surely the IPC situation moving from "epidemic" to "not epidemic" is good news?  It would be difficult to make an argument otherwise.  But to address the specific question of what is an epidemic I hit good to get the stages of sickness virility to bring clarity.

https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/epidemic-vs-pandemic

Quote
Sporadic: When a disease occurs infrequently and irregularly.

Endemic: A constant presence and/or usual prevalence of a disease or infection within a geographic area. (Hyperendemic is a situation in which there are persistent, high levels of disease occurrence.)

Epidemic: A sudden increase in the number of cases of a disease—more than what's typically expected for the population in that area.

Pandemic: An epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, affecting a large number of people.

So, presumably, if the IPC diseases fall below epidemic levels they become endemic, or infecting at the usual prevalence.  Background noise.  Surely that would be a good development.

I implied no such thing. I noted that Dave seemed to misunderstand the point you were making about the epidemic threshold and rather than talking past one another, I provided the definitions and thresholds that were not in the article.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 09, 2020, 06:01:17 PM
@jamtod, my apologies.  I misunderstood as I thought you were addressing me.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 09, 2020, 06:31:12 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 09, 2020, 07:15:10 AM
Good news alert, particularly for school this fall with the student age demographic.  Empirical data on the improving skills of medical professionals in treating the infection.  Additionally benefited be the decreasing proportion of vulnerable people being infected as the virus becomes more... endemic.

From the BBC: Coronavirus death rate falling in hospitals (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53192532).  It's a good read.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50093535086_aa39476074_z.jpg)

Here's a good data point for us to judge what the coming year is starting to look like.  It's the infection, hospitilisation and death rate estimates for influenza over the years.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

(https://www.cdc.gov/flu/images/about/burden/influenza-burden-chart2-960px.jpg)

It varies widely by flu season but ranges from about 7 deaths in every 100 hospitilisations to 11 in every 100 for some years.  That assumes, of course, that all deaths from the flu happen in hospital when I expect that many happen in long term care facilities who may be used to and equiped to manage people with the flu.  But for judging where things are heading I don't think that's a fatal assumption.

Oxford's findings that in-hospital Covid fatalities have steadily fallen from 7 in every 100 to 1.5 in every 100 is surely due to better treatment protocols and less vulnerable patients, as the BBC article details.  But it would seem unwise to also conclude we're way better at treating Covid than we are the flu.  I suspect instead that we are admitting Covid patients at a far higher rate than flu patients seeing as Covid-19 is novel.  If someone has flu-like symptoms normally, I suspect the medical community is very well-tuned to identifying when hospitilisation is required and when it isn't.  For Covid the medical community is much more in the "better safe than sorry" mode and admitting many more patients now than they will in a year or two when the virus is normalised in terms of medical experience with it.

It certainly looks to me like all the trends are very positive and this virus will soon (within a year or so) join the background noise of other flu-like illnesses.

EDIT: In fact, if we suppose that the socially accepted treatment level for flu-like illnesses is one death in every 9 hospital admissions (picking a mid-point number from the flu experience), then we could expect an 80% - 85% reduction in Covid admissions as the treatment normalises.  That would certainly put it into the background noise, I think.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 10, 2020, 08:04:43 PM
These numbers out of Stockholm University should be considered by policy makers.  Let students back and let them play.  Protect the vulnerable.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Echr2gSWsAIvO2a?format=jpg&name=medium)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 11, 2020, 10:52:49 AM
I am shocked at the disregard for a few things. First, if the entire population was infected and on average 4% died ... that is still 312 million deaths.

Secondly, while someone might survive ... they pass it along to someone who may be vulnerable, even if that person is doing everything they can not to be at risk and be safe.

A death rate over 1% is staggering. The disregard for that understanding is shocking.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 11, 2020, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 11, 2020, 10:52:49 AM
I am shocked at the disregard for a few things. First, if the entire population was infected and on average 4% died ... that is still 312 million deaths.

Secondly, while someone might survive ... they pass it along to someone who may be vulnerable, even if that person is doing everything they can not to be at risk and be safe.

A death rate over 1% is staggering. The disregard for that understanding is shocking.

Unfortunately, there is no way for campuses or college athletics to operate with only "low-risk" healthy 20 somethings. The vulnerable don't exist In a separate world and I've yet to see any sort of tenable proposal for truly isolating the vulnerable. They are in the midst of our college campuses, workplaces, and families including my own.

Not to mention that the death rate isn't the only factor to consider here.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 11, 2020, 11:43:40 AM
Quote from: jamtod on July 11, 2020, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 11, 2020, 10:52:49 AM
I am shocked at the disregard for a few things. First, if the entire population was infected and on average 4% died ... that is still 312 million deaths.

Secondly, while someone might survive ... they pass it along to someone who may be vulnerable, even if that person is doing everything they can not to be at risk and be safe.

A death rate over 1% is staggering. The disregard for that understanding is shocking.

Unfortunately, there is no way for campuses or college athletics to operate with only "low-risk" healthy 20 somethings. The vulnerable don't exist In a separate world and I've yet to see any sort of tenable proposal for truly isolating the vulnerable. They are in the midst of our college campuses, workplaces, and families including my own.

Not to mention that the death rate isn't the only factor to consider here.

Exactly. Hell, by all definitions I'm vulnerable. And obesity is an vulnerability and the majority of this country fits that diagnosis.

As I said to someone recently, we have to just be patient and understand our world is going to be different for awhile. It is going to take time before we have a vaccine and antivirals to help combat this virus. We just can't rush things. I want sports, especially DIII athletics, as badly as anyone else ... but I am also realistic and understand that we might still have to wait awhile. That is incredibly disappointing ... but it is what it is. Being selfish and being stupid only makes things worse and take longer to ever get back to what will be our new normal.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: thescottharris on July 11, 2020, 05:14:39 PM
Just found this thread and not going to read thru every single page of recent because that would be insanity so forgive me if already posted, but...

Is there a website somewhere that tracks all the schools that have announced they will be closing?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 11, 2020, 05:27:08 PM
The schools themselves, for academic purposes? I've seen lists of schools' planned dates for opening this fall tracked by the Chronicle of Higher Education but don't have a link handy.

The athletics closures are tracked here: https://www.d3sports.com/notables/2020/06/schools-call-it-off-for-fall
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: thescottharris on July 11, 2020, 05:37:34 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 06, 2020, 04:33:49 PM
Yep. Not only are most D3 training staffs unequipped to handle attending to a football team playing out of season in the spring, on top of the spring sports that they already have to cover (and for which they always plan well in advance), but this is true of the rest of D3 support staffs as well. D3 Sports Information departments tend to be understaffed and have to work hard to make sure that all of their school's sports are duly covered; throwing football in on top of baseball, softball, track & field, lacrosse, etc., is going to make everybody suffer in that aspect of athletics as well. And then there's game staff. Do you know how many people it takes to put on a college football game, even at this level? It takes dozens, many (if not most) of whom don't work full-time for the school and who handle their game-day football responsibilities as a side gig. Good luck getting all of those people back together out of season and running an efficient, fully-staffed game crew.

I just can't see moving football to the spring as a viable possibility on the D3 level.
The financial implications it would take to play all fall sports in the spring would be disastrous for many colleges. You're talking about having to hire several more athletic trainers, either as staff members or as independent contractors. Same with SID departments. Hell, CNU had a shortage of one person this past fall and hired me as an independent contractor to do all the writing, design, and website work, basically anything that can be done without having to physically be there and had lots of trouble finding someone to be able to do the stuff at the games. Now imagine you move all those fall sports they have to the spring, what are they going to do?

And where is everyone going to practice? Lots of schools have limited field space under normal conditions. And they may not have lights to be able to accommodate the extra need. And what of the schools that use the grass outfields of their baseball fields for their fall sports field, or anyone else with a grass field of any sort that is used for both fall and spring sports? That field is going to be destroyed well before the spring seasons are finished.

A lot of schools rely on students to man game day positions and only have so many student employment spots they can fill. What are they going to do when they don't have the ability to hire enough people to cover all the game day positions? Hope they can find a bunch of volunteers to do it for free? lol good luck with that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: thescottharris on July 11, 2020, 05:38:42 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 11, 2020, 05:27:08 PM
The schools themselves, for academic purposes? I've seen lists of schools' planned dates for opening this fall tracked by the Chronicle of Higher Education but don't have a link handy.

The athletics closures are tracked here: https://www.d3sports.com/notables/2020/06/schools-call-it-off-for-fall
No, the school closing for good. I've seen an article here and there but I'm interested in knowing how many have called it quits.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 11, 2020, 05:49:18 PM
Among Division III schools, so far, two: MacMurray (Ill.), which closed at the conclusion of the spring semester, and Johnson & Wales-Denver, which closes in spring 2021 but has ceased athletics. In addition, J&W is closing its Florida campus on the same time frame.

Others? Perhaps. I don't know.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 11, 2020, 05:50:28 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 11, 2020, 10:52:49 AM
I am shocked at the disregard for a few things. First, if the entire population was infected and on average 4% died ... that is still 312 million deaths.

Secondly, while someone might survive ... they pass it along to someone who may be vulnerable, even if that person is doing everything they can not to be at risk and be safe.

A death rate over 1% is staggering. The disregard for that understanding is shocking.

If you make up scary numbers then you get scared.  Wheres the 4% fatality rate come from?  Nobody has been bandying around that number since March.  And for that matter, where does the next statement of over 1% come from?  Even the cautious CDC's best estimate from 6 weeks ago was 0.4% (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/health/cdc-coronavirus-estimates-symptoms-deaths/index.html).  And since that estimate, the fatality rate has  fallen by a quarter in the USA (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coronavirus-cfr) so I imagine the CDC's next estimate will be significantly improved.

As for protecting the vulnerable, who doesn't want to do that?  it's the number one thing that weighs on my mind with this pandemic since the vulnerable i my life are on the other side of the planet and I am completely unable to help them if they get in trouble.  No one needs to trot out a generic vulnerable card.  I've got specific concerns and am as well aware as anyone on that topic.  But I'm not panicked.  Why?  Because social distancing protects the vulnerable (https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-social-distancing-effective-mitigating-covid-.html).  If my parents pay attention to their surroundings then they are doing everything they can to stay safe.  Oddly, DIII football has absolutely no impact on their physical health.

You know, it is possible to both let the vast majority of the population who have nothing different than normal experience to expect from this virus get on with their lives while also giving the vulnerable the assistance they need to protect themselves.  I personally am shocked at the disregard people have for that reality.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on July 11, 2020, 09:41:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 11, 2020, 05:49:18 PM
Among Division III schools, so far, two: MacMurray (Ill.), which closed at the conclusion of the spring semester, and Johnson & Wales-Denver, which closes in spring 2021 but has ceased athletics. In addition, J&W is closing its Florida campus on the same time frame.

Others? Perhaps. I don't know.

Plus Wesley is being absorbed into Delaware State after the upcoming (?) athletic season.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 11, 2020, 10:53:53 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 11, 2020, 09:41:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 11, 2020, 05:49:18 PM
Among Division III schools, so far, two: MacMurray (Ill.), which closed at the conclusion of the spring semester, and Johnson & Wales-Denver, which closes in spring 2021 but has ceased athletics. In addition, J&W is closing its Florida campus on the same time frame.

Others? Perhaps. I don't know.

Plus Wesley is being absorbed into Delaware State after the upcoming (?) athletic season.

But the impact on ... anything is completely unknown. Just ask them.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 12, 2020, 09:19:17 AM
The BBC with some very revealing stories lately which if considered, could have a very big impact on decision making regarding colleges this year, not to mention life in general.

Coronavirus: How scared should we be? (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52758024)

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12F23/production/_112230677_optimised-mortality_rates-nc-3.png)

Quote
So coronavirus is, in effect, taking any frailties and amplifying them. It is like packing an extra year's worth of risk into a short period of time.

If your risk of dying was very low in the first place, it still remains very low.

As for children, the risk of dying from other things - cancer and accidents are the biggest cause of fatalities - is greater than their chance of dying if they are infected with coronavirus.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: thescottharris on July 15, 2020, 10:07:51 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 12, 2020, 09:19:17 AM
The BBC with some very revealing stories lately which if considered, could have a very big impact on decision making regarding colleges this year, not to mention life in general.

Coronavirus: How scared should we be? (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52758024)

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12F23/production/_112230677_optimised-mortality_rates-nc-3.png)

Quote
So coronavirus is, in effect, taking any frailties and amplifying them. It is like packing an extra year's worth of risk into a short period of time.

If your risk of dying was very low in the first place, it still remains very low.

As for children, the risk of dying from other things - cancer and accidents are the biggest cause of fatalities - is greater than their chance of dying if they are infected with coronavirus.
Death rate from Coronavirus isn't the only thing to be concerned about.

Hospitals are being over run, which leaves people at risk of death or other serious health risks/problems because they can't get the treatment they need or they avoid going to the hospital so they won't catch Coronavirus. One Texas patient had to be flown 120 miles to El Campo by helicopter because that's the closest facility that could take him. Ambulances are waiting up to 10 hours to deliver patients to ERs in Hidalgo County, Texas. The normal wait is less than 30 minutes. Ambulances aren't suited to provide long-term care and the space constraints generally prevent them from being able to adapt to do that. Overwhelmed hospitals used to transfer patients to other hospitals that had space for ICU patients, but many in Texas aren't taking transfers now because they don't have the space or want to leave space open for the incoming surge. And the rural hospitals that normally transfer complex medical cases to the better resourced larger hospitals in the bigger cities can't because those bigger city hospitals don't have anywhere to put them. Hospitals are having to spend millions to convert space into ICU space. Houston had to open up their children's hospital for adult patients.

PPE supplies are again running low, which puts our medical personnel at risk. In additions to beds, some Texas hospitals are running out of drugs, ventilators, and staff. Hospitals in Midland and Odessa, Texas, had to turn away Coronavirus patients because they didn't have the staff to offer them the care they needed. Hospitals are turning to using older model and disaster ventilators that are less optimal for treating the virus.

People are being it with devastating medicals bills from getting Coronavirus, I've seen stories of people getting bills that are well over $10K.

And if many Republicans get their way, being able to deny someone health insurance over pre-existing conditions will return along with lifetime maximums. If that happens, people with any long term health problems resulting from getting Coronavirus will have a difficult time getting health insurance (at least anything that isn't a scam) if their employer doesn't offer it and could quickly hit their lifetime maximum well before they get into twilight years where they have the most health problems.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jaybird44 on July 17, 2020, 04:32:45 PM
No fall sports at the University of Chicago...

https://athletics.uchicago.edu/general/2020-21/releases/20200716m11xzq
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 18, 2020, 02:04:20 AM
Quote from: scotth on July 15, 2020, 10:07:51 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 12, 2020, 09:19:17 AM
The BBC with some very revealing stories lately which if considered, could have a very big impact on decision making regarding colleges this year, not to mention life in general.

Coronavirus: How scared should we be? (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52758024)

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/12F23/production/_112230677_optimised-mortality_rates-nc-3.png)

Quote
So coronavirus is, in effect, taking any frailties and amplifying them. It is like packing an extra year's worth of risk into a short period of time.

If your risk of dying was very low in the first place, it still remains very low.

As for children, the risk of dying from other things - cancer and accidents are the biggest cause of fatalities - is greater than their chance of dying if they are infected with coronavirus.
Death rate from Coronavirus isn't the only thing to be concerned about.

Hospitals are being over run, which leaves people at risk of death or other serious health risks/problems because they can't get the treatment they need or they avoid going to the hospital so they won't catch Coronavirus. One Texas patient had to be flown 120 miles to El Campo by helicopter because that's the closest facility that could take him. Ambulances are waiting up to 10 hours to deliver patients to ERs in Hidalgo County, Texas. The normal wait is less than 30 minutes. Ambulances aren't suited to provide long-term care and the space constraints generally prevent them from being able to adapt to do that. Overwhelmed hospitals used to transfer patients to other hospitals that had space for ICU patients, but many in Texas aren't taking transfers now because they don't have the space or want to leave space open for the incoming surge. And the rural hospitals that normally transfer complex medical cases to the better resourced larger hospitals in the bigger cities can't because those bigger city hospitals don't have anywhere to put them. Hospitals are having to spend millions to convert space into ICU space. Houston had to open up their children's hospital for adult patients.

PPE supplies are again running low, which puts our medical personnel at risk. In additions to beds, some Texas hospitals are running out of drugs, ventilators, and staff. Hospitals in Midland and Odessa, Texas, had to turn away Coronavirus patients because they didn't have the staff to offer them the care they needed. Hospitals are turning to using older model and disaster ventilators that are less optimal for treating the virus.

People are being it with devastating medicals bills from getting Coronavirus, I've seen stories of people getting bills that are well over $10K.

And if many Republicans get their way, being able to deny someone health insurance over pre-existing conditions will return along with lifetime maximums. If that happens, people with any long term health problems resulting from getting Coronavirus will have a difficult time getting health insurance (at least anything that isn't a scam) if their employer doesn't offer it and could quickly hit their lifetime maximum well before they get into twilight years where they have the most health problems.

Wow.  That's pretty hopeless.  Those damned Republicans, eh?  They just take delight in killing people.

I have no idea which hospitals you're referring to other than the anecdotes you present, so let's look at the numbers for Texas.  In this post from July 1st (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3880.msg1991012#msg1991012) I linked to the data on Texas hospital capacity.  We can take a look at what it said then and compare it to what it says now to see what is actually happening.

Then:

Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 01, 2020, 09:19:20 AM
https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101f

Data from the TX dept of health and human services.

RE: Texas.  You'll need to click around the visualization to find the numbers but there are 55.3k hospital beds in TX, of which 41.5k are occupied (75% capacity).  Of those 41.5k bedded patients, 6.5k are with CV (12% of capacity and 16% of demand).  1.4k ICU beds and 5.5k ventilators remained unused.  So it appears that in TX, at least, the covid outbreak can get three times worse before TX must start using additional capacity facilities.

Now:

There are 56.7k beds in Texas of which 46.2k are occupied (81% capacity).  Of those 46.2k bedded patients, 10.6k are CV positive (19% of capacity and 23% of demand) [we can infer from the totals that non-CV hospital demand has remained stable over this period at 35k-36k beds instead of declining as you intimate].  900 ICU beds and and 5.2k ventilators remain unused.

So has TX reached a point where the must start adding extra capacity?  It appears they are not even close to that point.  But where did the extra 1.4k beds come from?  I suspect they have been made available in the Dallas and Houston areas of the state which are running closer to 85% capacity (84% in Dallas and 88% in Houston).

But what is that extra capacity?  Again from my July 1 post:

Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 01, 2020, 09:19:20 AM
According to this hospital brief by the TX DHS, hospitals in Texas can surge to 20% additional capacity above published numbers before they need to create new facilities.  So thats an additional 11k beds and which brings TX's capacity to treat sick patients with current facilities to almost 5x current CV requirements.  And there are already designated overflow facilities (convention centers and the like, it seems) which add another 4.5k beds in the state if needed and which bring the capacity of the state to almost 6x the current levels.

https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/PPT_6.16.20.pdf

Interestingly, despite breathless reports of Houston's largest hospital reaching near 100% capacity, overall Houston remains only 78% full, pretty much in line with the overall state numbers.  It's almost as if Houston is following some foolish policy like routing all CV patients to designated facilities in order to reduce cross-contamination and the like.  Crazy.

I think TX will get past the challenge.

So total surge capacity in TX is about 66.5k beds from existing facilities and about 71k beds by bringing designated overflow facilities online.  That means TX is at 65% of total capacity when they reach the true "overrun" point, as opposed to 58% capacity on July 1.  In order to be overrun, Covid hospitalisations would have to increase by 200% or to 30k patients.

As I thought on July 1, I think the Texas hospital system is more than adequate to meet this challenge and TX will make it through.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on July 18, 2020, 10:31:19 AM
Oz,
  Beds are only one part.  You also need the nurses and doctors and other equipment.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on July 18, 2020, 12:35:41 PM
+K
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 18, 2020, 04:26:42 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on July 18, 2020, 10:31:19 AM
Oz,
  Beds are only one part.  You also need the nurses and doctors and other equipment.

Come on, you reckon the Dept of Health neglected to consider that detail when stating how many beds they can sustain?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: thescottharris on July 18, 2020, 06:38:26 PM
One thing we may have not considered in regards to D3 athletics resuming is that most (at least of the colleges I am familiar enough with to be able to say this) operate with barely enough ATCs to cover in-season sports much less being able to provide regular coverage of non-traditional season sports. What are they going to do when an ATC gets the virus and has to be out for an extended period of time? You can't play the games without an ATC present, after all. Ability of athletic training departments to properly cover games, practices, and all the training room treatment is going to be compromised if they aren't able to work out an agreement to have ATCs on retainer to help fill in on short notice, and that is likely not going to be an option for colleges in smaller/rural areas.

And the general protocol is when someone gets the virus, people that were exposed to said person is supposed to get tested and quarantined for 72 hours or until they get the results back. What are we going to do when a player, coach, or athletic trainer tests positive on the eve of a game? Is the game just going to get canceled, or are we going to just let it happen and hope no one else has the virus and spreads it?

And how are schools going to be able to afford to do mass testing when it's needed? If a player has coronavirus, I would imagine the chances are pretty high that other teammates have gotten it in contact sports like football, soccer, basketball, lacrosse, etc. And even in non-contact sports like volleyball, cross country, track, you're going to be in close confines with your teammates general six days a week at practice, in the locker room, sharing equipment of various types, etc. And I'd imagine most D3 schools don't have multiple athletics weight lifting facilties or athletic training rooms, so when one person gets it that has recently used the weight room or training room, then they have exposed it to all the other athletes from different teams that have used the weight room and training room. You're talking potentially hundreds of tests that will need to be done anytime any athlete, coach, or athletic trainer contracts the virus.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 19, 2020, 12:53:57 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 18, 2020, 04:26:42 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on July 18, 2020, 10:31:19 AM
Oz,
  Beds are only one part.  You also need the nurses and doctors and other equipment.

Come on, you reckon the Dept of Health neglected to consider that detail when stating how many beds they can sustain?

You do realize there is a significant difference between hospital beds for those recovering from elective surgeries and simple illnesses and those needed for extreme cases, right?

If someone is in a regular hospital bed and their health goes south they are MOVED to a different section/wing of the hospital where more equipment, differently trained staff (nurses, etc.) are available, and other things are available to handle their more complicated case. You can't just make all beds ICU beds. That isn't possible. There isn't enough equipment, the air handling standards are different, the staff training is VERY different (nurses have all kinds of different training; my sister in law had far more complex training as a Surgical ICU nurse than one who works in a different wing). The number of staff is also different. I spent the night in surgical recovery last year because there wasn't a bed available that was previously planned. The disadvantage is it isn't a comfortable or private, but I had a nurse one-to-one assigned to me. If I was in the other wing, I would have been one of maybe ten patients a nurse would have been assigned.

You can't look at raw hospital bed numbers because they don't tell you how many beds are available for ICU and other severe illneses and such. The number of ICU and severe case beds are the ones to pay attention to - only. I have a dear friend in Houston. His constant updates are they are basically out of ICU and severe case beds. In other words, if he were to be in bad car accident right now, there might not be a place that can handle him case as we would expect because the staffing, beds, equipment, etc. are taken up by COVID cases. THAT is the problem NO ONE (especially you) seems to grasp from this illness. When we overwhelm our medical systems due to COVID, ALL cases take a significant back seat. So now the heart attack, car accident, stroke, etc. case is more at risk of turning out badly than they were if we had more of a control on COVID.

BTW - hospitals will go out of business from this as well. They stay open not because of emergency care - that is a money losing business. They stay open because of elective surgeries and the like. If they don't have enough surgical rooms, beds, staff, etc. for elective surgeries - or can't figure out a way to put systems in place to keep people safe from COVID ... they have to limit or shutdown elective surgeries. That will shutdown hospitals in the long run.

I am blown away with your cavalier attitude towards all this. You cherry pick information that fits your narrow, narrow thinking. You refuse to understand the larger problems a foot. And you do not care about anything but your selfish needs.

We ALL want athletics back up and running. We want student-athletes in schools and teams on the fields/courts, but it seems a majority of us are well aware that things are not good right now. That we are overwhelming our hospital systems, we are putting people at risk in danger (even if they are trying to be safe), and we are allowing a virus to get out of control. Compared to most of the rest of the world, we look like idiots ... but you keep arguing things are good. Mindblowing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 19, 2020, 01:17:44 PM
Interesting article on AL.com about the College Football "Information Wars" and evolving narrative. Seems to have implications across the board for all sports:
https://www.al.com/alabamafootball/2020/07/inside-college-footballs-coronavirus-information-war.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 19, 2020, 05:38:19 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 19, 2020, 12:53:57 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 18, 2020, 04:26:42 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on July 18, 2020, 10:31:19 AM
Oz,
  Beds are only one part.  You also need the nurses and doctors and other equipment.

Come on, you reckon the Dept of Health neglected to consider that detail when stating how many beds they can sustain?

(A) You do realize there is a significant difference between hospital beds for those recovering from elective surgeries and simple illnesses and those needed for extreme cases, right?

If someone is in a regular hospital bed and their health goes south they are MOVED to a different section/wing of the hospital where more equipment, differently trained staff (nurses, etc.) are available, and other things are available to handle their more complicated case. (B)You can't just make all beds ICU beds. That isn't possible. There isn't enough equipment, the air handling standards are different, the staff training is VERY different (nurses have all kinds of different training; my sister in law had far more complex training as a Surgical ICU nurse than one who works in a different wing). The number of staff is also different. I spent the night in surgical recovery last year because there wasn't a bed available that was previously planned. The disadvantage is it isn't a comfortable or private, but I had a nurse one-to-one assigned to me. C) If I was in the other wing, I would have been one of maybe ten patients a nurse would have been assigned.

(D)You can't look at raw hospital bed numbers because they don't tell you how many beds are available for ICU and other severe illneses and such. The number of ICU and severe case beds are the ones to pay attention to - only. I have a dear friend in Houston. His constant updates are they are basically out of ICU and severe case beds. In other words, if he were to be in bad car accident right now, there might not be a place that can handle him case as we would expect because the staffing, beds, equipment, etc. are taken up by COVID cases. THAT is the problem NO ONE (especially you) seems to grasp from this illness. When we overwhelm our medical systems due to COVID, ALL cases take a significant back seat. (E)So now the heart attack, car accident, stroke, etc. case is more at risk of turning out badly than they were if we had more of a control on COVID.

BTW - hospitals will go out of business from this as well. They stay open not because of emergency care - that is a money losing business. They stay open because of elective surgeries and the like. If they don't have enough surgical rooms, beds, staff, etc. for elective surgeries - or can't figure out a way to put systems in place to keep people safe from COVID ... they have to limit or shutdown elective surgeries. That will shutdown hospitals in the long run.

(F)I am blown away with your cavalier attitude towards all this. You cherry pick information that fits your narrow, narrow thinking. You refuse to understand the larger problems a foot. And you do not care about anything but your selfish needs.

We ALL want athletics back up and running. We want student-athletes in schools and teams on the fields/courts, but it seems a majority of us are well aware that things are not good right now. That we are overwhelming our hospital systems, we are putting people at risk in danger (even if they are trying to be safe), and we are allowing a virus to get out of control. Compared to most of the rest of the world, we look like idiots ... but you keep arguing things are good. Mindblowing.

A) What a ridiculous question.  If your disagreement with the information I clearly provide supporting every post I make relies on such ignorance from people who disagree with you then I can see why your posts are always so emotional.

B) Oh the problems with this fatalistic statement.  Obviously it isn't true, how the did the first bed get made?  Additionally, it flies in the face of the information from the TX department of health.  Lastly, it's steeped in ignorant fear.  Hear's an article from the Texas Medical Centre (https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/we-do-not-have-a-crisis-of-beds-texas-medical-center-leaders-explain-reformatted-icu-bed-capacity-data/285-12446283-4afc-46be-b5ba-a401bfe5ff14) explaining exactly why your believe is wrong: "That's what happens normally in hospitals. They're at their full capacity and when it gets crowded, they add additional beds, ventilators, and staff so you get the same quality of care," Dr. James McDeavitt, senior vice-president and dean of Clinical Affairs for Baylor College of Medicine, said.

C) I know what the average nurse to bed ratio is in the USA.  I also know what it is in every major country because I have looked it up.  Hint, it's nothing like your make-believe number from the expertise of your single stay in hospital.  I'll leave it to you to discover the actual numbers.  Let's see if you have it in you to absorb information which doesn't fit your fatalistic world view.

D) I don't know why I bother responding to you as you clearly don't read my posts.  I listed ICU bed counts in my post.  Usage.  Availability.  I clearly do you the courtesy of reading what you type.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't do the same in response since you're so eager to demean rather than discuss.

E) Show us where the quality of care is actually dropping.  Stick with Texas, if possible.  I've already presented the Texas numbers that show non-Covid related patients have remained steady.  Show us the drop in quality of care.  Not a fact-free argument.  If all you can bring to this discussion is your imagination then let us know that now, thanks.

F) Cherry picking?  You present no evidence I cherry pick other than once again the offensive, bald assertion.  You're free to post any information you like in support of your argument.  Yes you choose none.  You're free to demonstrate how my presented information is wrong or incomplete.  You fail to do so.  I am, frankly, stunned by your inability to look at this rationally rather than emotionally.  In the face of data which doesn't fit your world view you lash out with insult and invective.  The projection is strong with you.

I look at the data and draw a less emotional conclusion that you.  I'm able to look at information and separate my brain from the pitter-patter of my heart.  I'm really tired of every post from you being an emotional, informationless attack.  If only your passion for understanding matched your passion for endorphin hits.

As to looking like idiots in comparison to the rest of the world, you have no idea.  Again you are projecting your views onto the rest of the world and drawing comfort.  That is what is truly embarrassing.

Do you know understand the difference between rational discussion and emotional discussion?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 19, 2020, 06:11:43 PM
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/health-science/2020/07/16/378108/texas-hospitals-head-towards-full-capacity-due-to-covid-19-uptick/

Feel free to ignore the media narrative if you'd like and just read quotes from Doctors and management on the ground. And this is with postponing elective surgeries and other measures.

Quote"Picture it like this: Would you rather cook in your kitchen or cook in your bedroom?" said Roberta Schwartz, Executive Vice President of Houston Methodist. "I'm sure you could cook in your bedroom, right? You drive in the toaster oven and you know you can make it work. It's just not ideal."

QuoteHe is afraid that operating at surge capacity for too long will lead to burnout of his staff and substandard care for patients.

Studies have shown a higher risk of mortality the longer a patient waits in the ER to be admitted.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 19, 2020, 07:11:52 PM
Wait, your battle by anecdote had already been pre-empted.  I'll reiterate it here but before I do can you answer this question, please?  How do we choose which appeal to authority to listen to?  Just so it's easy to judge this exercise.

Texas Medical Center leaders explain reformatted ICU bed capacity data (https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/we-do-not-have-a-crisis-of-beds-texas-medical-center-leaders-explain-reformatted-icu-bed-capacity-data/285-12446283-4afc-46be-b5ba-a401bfe5ff14)

Quote
"That's what happens normally in hospitals. They're at their full capacity and when it gets crowded, they add additional beds, ventilators, and staff so you get the same quality of care," Dr. James McDeavitt, senior vice-president and dean of Clinical Affairs for Baylor College of Medicine, said.

Quote
"Right now we don't have a crisis of beds today," said Dr. McDeavitt. "We have plenty of ICU capacity in the hospitals. We can take care of twice as many COVID-19 patients in the ICUs as we currently are."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on July 19, 2020, 07:39:55 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 19, 2020, 07:11:52 PM
Wait, your battle by anecdote had already been pre-empted.  I'll reiterate it here but before I do can you answer this question, please?  How do we choose which appeal to authority to listen to?  Just so it's easy to judge this exercise.

Texas Medical Center leaders explain reformatted ICU bed capacity data (https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/we-do-not-have-a-crisis-of-beds-texas-medical-center-leaders-explain-reformatted-icu-bed-capacity-data/285-12446283-4afc-46be-b5ba-a401bfe5ff14)

Quote
"That's what happens normally in hospitals. They're at their full capacity and when it gets crowded, they add additional beds, ventilators, and staff so you get the same quality of care," Dr. James McDeavitt, senior vice-president and dean of Clinical Affairs for Baylor College of Medicine, said.

Quote
"Right now we don't have a crisis of beds today," said Dr. McDeavitt. "We have plenty of ICU capacity in the hospitals. We can take care of twice as many COVID-19 patients in the ICUs as we currently are."

You do know the article you are citing is almost 3 weeks old? Here is the latest statement. They are 100% full for pre-covid emergency but have room for expansion in phases 2 and 3 of covid contingency plans. https://www.tmc.edu/coronavirus-updates/tmc-key-takeaways/

So yeah. No absolute issue right now, and the projected growth rate is fine for the next 2 weeks for emergency capacity, but they are through any normal scenario. In other words, both of you have something of a point and both of you are stretching to make it seem like truth when really it lies somewhere in the middle. Operating for a long term at emergency levels is bad for profit, staff, and facilities, but they do currently still have more room to give than they expect to need in the short term.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 19, 2020, 08:00:20 PM
Quote from: jknezek on July 19, 2020, 07:39:55 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 19, 2020, 07:11:52 PM
Wait, your battle by anecdote had already been pre-empted.  I'll reiterate it here but before I do can you answer this question, please?  How do we choose which appeal to authority to listen to?  Just so it's easy to judge this exercise.

Texas Medical Center leaders explain reformatted ICU bed capacity data (https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/we-do-not-have-a-crisis-of-beds-texas-medical-center-leaders-explain-reformatted-icu-bed-capacity-data/285-12446283-4afc-46be-b5ba-a401bfe5ff14)

Quote
"That's what happens normally in hospitals. They're at their full capacity and when it gets crowded, they add additional beds, ventilators, and staff so you get the same quality of care," Dr. James McDeavitt, senior vice-president and dean of Clinical Affairs for Baylor College of Medicine, said.

Quote
"Right now we don't have a crisis of beds today," said Dr. McDeavitt. "We have plenty of ICU capacity in the hospitals. We can take care of twice as many COVID-19 patients in the ICUs as we currently are."

You do know the article you are citing is almost 3 weeks old? Here is the latest statement. They are 100% full for pre-covid emergency but have room for expansion in phases 2 and 3 of covid contingency plans. https://www.tmc.edu/coronavirus-updates/tmc-key-takeaways/

So yeah. No absolute issue right now, and the projected growth rate is fine for the next 2 weeks for emergency capacity, but they are through any normal scenario. In other words, both of you have something of a point and both of you are stretching to make it seem like truth when really it lies somewhere in the middle. Operating for a long term at emergency levels is bad for profit, staff, and facilities, but they do currently still have more room to give than they expect to need in the short term.

Support your argument.  Give us the data FROM TODAY ONLY which leads you to believe you're right.  Show us the research you've done to inform your opinion.

I'll help you out (https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101f).  Today, at this very second, the Houston area has 100 ICU beds unoccupied and ready for service.  They have 1,794 hospital beds unoccupied and available for service.  They do not list ICU capacity (but as we know specifically for Houston, that is rapidly and highly flexible) but we do know that Houston has 12,516 beds in total so are running at just over 85% capacity, a three point improvement from just yesterday which was running at 88% capacity.  That translates into 375 net discharges in a single day.  It looks to me like Houston has adequately managed this challenge.


I am under no misunderstandings about the seriousness of a novel virus.  I'm extremely aware of them.  As such I have made sure my opinion is informed by fact.  By source data.  And not emotionalism or media hysteria.  I am clearly focused on a way to overcome this challenge, not retreat in the face of it.  The easy path here is to roll over and give up.  I won't take that path.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 19, 2020, 08:08:41 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 19, 2020, 07:11:52 PM
Wait, your battle by anecdote had already been pre-empted.  I'll reiterate it here but before I do can you answer this question, please?  How do we choose which appeal to authority to listen to?  Just so it's easy to judge this exercise.

Texas Medical Center leaders explain reformatted ICU bed capacity data (https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/we-do-not-have-a-crisis-of-beds-texas-medical-center-leaders-explain-reformatted-icu-bed-capacity-data/285-12446283-4afc-46be-b5ba-a401bfe5ff14)

Quote
"That's what happens normally in hospitals. They're at their full capacity and when it gets crowded, they add additional beds, ventilators, and staff so you get the same quality of care," Dr. James McDeavitt, senior vice-president and dean of Clinical Affairs for Baylor College of Medicine, said.

Quote
"Right now we don't have a crisis of beds today," said Dr. McDeavitt. "We have plenty of ICU capacity in the hospitals. We can take care of twice as many COVID-19 patients in the ICUs as we currently are."

The article I referenced is from 3 days ago. If the CEO of the health system and multiple doctors there are concerned, I don't think it's crazy to be concerned.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 19, 2020, 08:37:48 PM
Quote from: jamtod on July 19, 2020, 08:08:41 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 19, 2020, 07:11:52 PM
Wait, your battle by anecdote had already been pre-empted.  I'll reiterate it here but before I do can you answer this question, please?  How do we choose which appeal to authority to listen to?  Just so it's easy to judge this exercise.

Texas Medical Center leaders explain reformatted ICU bed capacity data (https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/we-do-not-have-a-crisis-of-beds-texas-medical-center-leaders-explain-reformatted-icu-bed-capacity-data/285-12446283-4afc-46be-b5ba-a401bfe5ff14)

Quote
"That's what happens normally in hospitals. They're at their full capacity and when it gets crowded, they add additional beds, ventilators, and staff so you get the same quality of care," Dr. James McDeavitt, senior vice-president and dean of Clinical Affairs for Baylor College of Medicine, said.

Quote
"Right now we don't have a crisis of beds today," said Dr. McDeavitt. "We have plenty of ICU capacity in the hospitals. We can take care of twice as many COVID-19 patients in the ICUs as we currently are."

The article I referenced is from 3 days ago. If the CEO of the health system and multiple doctors there are concerned, I don't think it's crazy to be concerned.

I don't think it's crazy to be concerned, either.  In fact I think it's prudent.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 20, 2020, 12:17:26 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 19, 2020, 05:38:19 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on July 19, 2020, 12:53:57 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 18, 2020, 04:26:42 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on July 18, 2020, 10:31:19 AM
Oz,
  Beds are only one part.  You also need the nurses and doctors and other equipment.

Come on, you reckon the Dept of Health neglected to consider that detail when stating how many beds they can sustain?

(A) You do realize there is a significant difference between hospital beds for those recovering from elective surgeries and simple illnesses and those needed for extreme cases, right?

If someone is in a regular hospital bed and their health goes south they are MOVED to a different section/wing of the hospital where more equipment, differently trained staff (nurses, etc.) are available, and other things are available to handle their more complicated case. (B)You can't just make all beds ICU beds. That isn't possible. There isn't enough equipment, the air handling standards are different, the staff training is VERY different (nurses have all kinds of different training; my sister in law had far more complex training as a Surgical ICU nurse than one who works in a different wing). The number of staff is also different. I spent the night in surgical recovery last year because there wasn't a bed available that was previously planned. The disadvantage is it isn't a comfortable or private, but I had a nurse one-to-one assigned to me. C) If I was in the other wing, I would have been one of maybe ten patients a nurse would have been assigned.

(D)You can't look at raw hospital bed numbers because they don't tell you how many beds are available for ICU and other severe illneses and such. The number of ICU and severe case beds are the ones to pay attention to - only. I have a dear friend in Houston. His constant updates are they are basically out of ICU and severe case beds. In other words, if he were to be in bad car accident right now, there might not be a place that can handle him case as we would expect because the staffing, beds, equipment, etc. are taken up by COVID cases. THAT is the problem NO ONE (especially you) seems to grasp from this illness. When we overwhelm our medical systems due to COVID, ALL cases take a significant back seat. (E)So now the heart attack, car accident, stroke, etc. case is more at risk of turning out badly than they were if we had more of a control on COVID.

BTW - hospitals will go out of business from this as well. They stay open not because of emergency care - that is a money losing business. They stay open because of elective surgeries and the like. If they don't have enough surgical rooms, beds, staff, etc. for elective surgeries - or can't figure out a way to put systems in place to keep people safe from COVID ... they have to limit or shutdown elective surgeries. That will shutdown hospitals in the long run.

(F)I am blown away with your cavalier attitude towards all this. You cherry pick information that fits your narrow, narrow thinking. You refuse to understand the larger problems a foot. And you do not care about anything but your selfish needs.

We ALL want athletics back up and running. We want student-athletes in schools and teams on the fields/courts, but it seems a majority of us are well aware that things are not good right now. That we are overwhelming our hospital systems, we are putting people at risk in danger (even if they are trying to be safe), and we are allowing a virus to get out of control. Compared to most of the rest of the world, we look like idiots ... but you keep arguing things are good. Mindblowing.

A) What a ridiculous question.  If your disagreement with the information I clearly provide supporting every post I make relies on such ignorance from people who disagree with you then I can see why your posts are always so emotional.

B) Oh the problems with this fatalistic statement.  Obviously it isn't true, how the did the first bed get made?  Additionally, it flies in the face of the information from the TX department of health.  Lastly, it's steeped in ignorant fear.  Hear's an article from the Texas Medical Centre (https://www.khou.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/we-do-not-have-a-crisis-of-beds-texas-medical-center-leaders-explain-reformatted-icu-bed-capacity-data/285-12446283-4afc-46be-b5ba-a401bfe5ff14) explaining exactly why your believe is wrong: "That's what happens normally in hospitals. They're at their full capacity and when it gets crowded, they add additional beds, ventilators, and staff so you get the same quality of care," Dr. James McDeavitt, senior vice-president and dean of Clinical Affairs for Baylor College of Medicine, said.

C) I know what the average nurse to bed ratio is in the USA.  I also know what it is in every major country because I have looked it up.  Hint, it's nothing like your make-believe number from the expertise of your single stay in hospital.  I'll leave it to you to discover the actual numbers.  Let's see if you have it in you to absorb information which doesn't fit your fatalistic world view.

D) I don't know why I bother responding to you as you clearly don't read my posts.  I listed ICU bed counts in my post.  Usage.  Availability.  I clearly do you the courtesy of reading what you type.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't do the same in response since you're so eager to demean rather than discuss.

E) Show us where the quality of care is actually dropping.  Stick with Texas, if possible.  I've already presented the Texas numbers that show non-Covid related patients have remained steady.  Show us the drop in quality of care.  Not a fact-free argument.  If all you can bring to this discussion is your imagination then let us know that now, thanks.

F) Cherry picking?  You present no evidence I cherry pick other than once again the offensive, bald assertion.  You're free to post any information you like in support of your argument.  Yes you choose none.  You're free to demonstrate how my presented information is wrong or incomplete.  You fail to do so.  I am, frankly, stunned by your inability to look at this rationally rather than emotionally.  In the face of data which doesn't fit your world view you lash out with insult and invective.  The projection is strong with you.

I look at the data and draw a less emotional conclusion that you.  I'm able to look at information and separate my brain from the pitter-patter of my heart.  I'm really tired of every post from you being an emotional, informationless attack.  If only your passion for understanding matched your passion for endorphin hits.

As to looking like idiots in comparison to the rest of the world, you have no idea.  Again you are projecting your views onto the rest of the world and drawing comfort.  That is what is truly embarrassing.

Do you know understand the difference between rational discussion and emotional discussion?

You may not realize it ... but much of what you think about my experience is inaccurate ...

I'm skipping A because you didn't realize what I was pointing out ... clearly.

B - What you use an example is still not accurate. You cannot make every bed in a hospital an ICU bed. There isn't enough equipment nor are the hospitals capable of doing it. How do I know? First off, my father has been a general surgeon, family practitioner, surgical doctor, medical examiner, and nearly anything else including head of medical staffs at hospitals from Chicago to rural Maine and he is called upon for his experience and knowledge at state and national medical conferences ever year ... I have learned a LOT from him and continue to learn. I live in the Baltimore area, home of the best hospitals (Johns Hopkins AND University of Maryland) in the country. I happen to have friends and relatives who work in the JHU and UMaryland systems and have learned a lot from all of them - some of them as nurses and doctors and some as administrators who help run these massive systems. They inform me of how things operate and work especially recently as I haven't been able to have an elective surgery that I badly need. Explaining much of why it isn't possible even things seem plentiful. Of course, my doctor and his staff explaining that the need for ORs is more important than hospital beds and the need for ICU beds, which can be expanded, doesn't take up the entire hospital for the reasons I shared. So I discuss this stuff from being educated and having my eyes and ears open to better understand these things ... probably comes from my numerous years as a producer and journalist.

So you can pretend to read something about expanding ICU beds and decide it must mean ALL beds are available to become ICU beds, but that isn't accurate. I also had that confirmed from my dear friend in Houston who I mentioned earlier ... who happened to work in a field that directly helps hospitals and doctors (and their practices) and has to be up to speed on things. But if you need me to help more, I am sure to discuss this more with my SICU trained sister in law (she's just going to repeat this stuff), countless other high-end trained nurses and nurse practitioners, many doctors, and others I know personally ... but I suspect you still have your assumptions you will stick with.

C - You can still try and pretend the "average" nurse to bed ratio somehow disputes my point, but if I have one-to-one care in the recovery room and then go up to a room where it is 10:1 the average is 5:1 - doesn't really help your argument. I was told in the hospital that I would be one of ten patients on the level I was to go to for each nurse and I know I was the only patient for the nurse in recovery. I didn't just rest on my laurels with that information, I checked with that sister in law I mentioned prior - who informed me what the average patient load is in ICU, SICU, NICU, and every other place in the the hospital (I was at Johns Hopkins main hospital, but the way - and it is spelled with an 's' at the end of "John") and it turns out the info I was given in the hospital was accurate. But do tell me what the average nurse to bed ratio is in the ENTIRE country and I will be sure to know how that average changes what each and every hospital in the country is able to do. I am sure the average tells me everything, right? In reality, it just helps the argument you are trying to make and that's the only reason you are using it.

D - I read your posts... hard to miss. You don't seem to have anything else to do. I try not to read them ... but sadly, I haven't found the block feature. From what I read, you were trying to indicate that there are many more beds available but not being used. I simply disagree and pointed out not all beds are able to be ICU beds. But the bigger problem I had with it all was my friend in Houston giving me constant updates on things - because I find it both interesting and sad - and you seemed to be making assumptions of more availability than there really is.

E - Quality of care dropping is part and parcel with why not only medical experts but also competent leaders are trying to keep covid cases down. If you max out the hospitals especially for longer period of times, they have to make horrific decisions like who gets to live and who doesn't because there aren't enough ventilators or other equipment to keep people alive. There have been countless stories, especially early on, on how hard those decisions are to make. But if you are in an area that gets slammed and there aren't enough OR rooms, then someone in bad need of an operation can't get it because the ORs are being used suffers because of it. It was also mentioned that overworked people can't keep up the quality of care - how could they? Medical people are human, too, and if they are overworked and burned out they will make mistakes. This doesn't need to have articles for proof, it is simply known. Again, look to those I've mentioned I have talked to in my life in general and especially now ... do you think I'm talking to any medical expert or one who works in the field who says, "hell, we can handle ten times these cases plus every car accident that comes along ... it won't be a big deal." Hell no. If the medical system is slammed with covid cases ... ALL medical cases suffer. Period.

When there is a bad storm, why do you think they tell people to stay home and off the roads? It is so we don't overwhelm the EMS system so it gets bogged down with everything from stupid spin outs, stuck cars, to major wrecks ... because then people are tied up dealing with something trivial (like the person who had to get more milk from the store in the middle of a blizzard) when an actual serious emergency strikes and crews are late to arrive or not able to arrive. It is the same with hospitals. If we can keep the numbers low and keep our hospitals from being overwhelmed especially for long periods of time (covid cases seem to run from weeks at the lowest to over 90-days), then ALL patients have a better chance of getting the treatment they deserve. I can't believe you need "proof" of the system not working to understand or appreciate that.

F - Yes, cherry pick. The examples have already been shown. You pick articles that work for your argument and when it's shown the info is weeks old you seem to just move on. You grabbed data from Britain the other day. Best I could tell, that was data about Britain which has things well under control. How does that relate to our country where things are out of control in many parts. Even in my state the R0 number is rising above 1.0 again ... but I wouldn't look to Germany to see their data and say "see, it isn't that bad... we should have athletics, damn it!"

Believe it or not ... I'm not emotional. Yeah, I'm frustrated and angry about the situation we are in, but I don't tend to write in that manner. I am simply expressing my thoughts. And I certainly am not projecting anything. I have friends around the world. I know how this virus has affected them personally and their countries. I have friends around this country. I know how this virus and affected them personally and their states and counties. I am not projecting anything. And I certainly am not finding anything comfortable at all. Sadly, the one who is embarrassing seems to be you ... at least from what others seem to be saying.

Now ... where is that block feature.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 20, 2020, 08:43:32 AM
https://abc13.com/amp/health/patients-wait-while-med-center-says-100s-of-beds-still-available/6310321/

Some discussion of capacity as pertains to beds vs staffing.

QuoteThursday afternoon, the Southeast Texas Regional Advisory Council (SETRAC), a government agency that coordinates hospital use in our area, told 13 Investigates there were 271 patients waiting for a bed in Houston area emergency rooms. Sixty of those patients needed an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) bed.

At the same time, the Texas Medical Center's website showed 813 ICU beds that could be added. "Phase 2 beds are 17 percent occupied," according to the TMC COVID-19 dashboard

QuoteStatistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on July 20, 2020, 09:56:04 AM
Dave, click on your own profile, summary, modify profile, buddies/ignore list, edit ignore list, type the member you want to ignore in the space at the bottom.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on July 20, 2020, 03:09:50 PM
Oz,

Here is some info for you to pick apart.

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/us-map
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 20, 2020, 06:05:57 PM
Can't discuss so now it is block, d-Mac?  A real profile in courage there.  All you have to contribute is another invective filled rant. I can see why you want to block. You very passionately believe what you believe but are unable to explain why you believe it either calmly or substantively.  I can sense your frustration and it's justified.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 20, 2020, 06:57:33 PM
Quote from: jamtod on July 20, 2020, 08:43:32 AM
https://abc13.com/amp/health/patients-wait-while-med-center-says-100s-of-beds-still-available/6310321/

Some discussion of capacity as pertains to beds vs staffing.

QuoteThursday afternoon, the Southeast Texas Regional Advisory Council (SETRAC), a government agency that coordinates hospital use in our area, told 13 Investigates there were 271 patients waiting for a bed in Houston area emergency rooms. Sixty of those patients needed an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) bed.

At the same time, the Texas Medical Center's website showed 813 ICU beds that could be added. "Phase 2 beds are 17 percent occupied," according to the TMC COVID-19 dashboard

QuoteStatistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Remember back three weeks ago when Houston hospitals were overwhelmed and dead where lying in the streets?

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/data-analytics/texas-medical-center-hit-100-icu-bed-capacity-then-didn-t-report-data-for-3-days.html

Yeah, me neither.

Look, I'm not saying this bug isn't serious. It is. Note I've said this. I'm not saying this bug isn't a challenge. It is. Note I've said this. I'm not saying we should be concerned and informed about the magnitude of that challenge. We should. Note I've said this.

What I am saying is that we have all the tools and capabilities available to us to achieve a roaring victory here. There's no need to be fearful or stressed. The hospitals will easily cope. Individual hospitals will face moments of stress hit the system will easily handle the challenge.

Why?  Because the bug is far less deadly and serious than first feared as I've documented here. And because our hospitals have far more capacity and capability than is commonly acknowledged, again as I document here.

The bug is serious. Check.
We should be very aware. Check.
The tools and systems we have in place are more than adequate to deal with what has developed into a slightly worse than routine challenge.

The fact that people are unable to discuss or acknowledge this argument without resorting to insults and blocking is a sad state of affairs. What I'm saying is not unreasonable. The inability to engage in the discussion like an adult is.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 20, 2020, 08:57:52 PM
A powerful argument from the president of the University of Dubuque concerning COVID and university this fall.  I highly recommend every person read and consider his article.  It has much to consider whether you're inclined to agree with it or not.

An Inoculation of Common Sense (https://jeffbullock.com/inoculation-of-common-sense/?ct=t(inoculation_of_common_sense)&mc_cid=afd3076003&mc_eid=2ea4b0baa2)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 21, 2020, 05:17:19 PM
https://twitter.com/d3football/status/1285682888617472001?s=19
D3 recommending cancellation of D3 playoffs this year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on July 21, 2020, 05:49:41 PM
Quote from: jamtod on July 21, 2020, 05:17:19 PM
https://twitter.com/d3football/status/1285682888617472001?s=19
D3 recommending cancellation of D3 playoffs this year.

Plus giving the OK to Spring football.....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jaybird44 on July 21, 2020, 06:04:51 PM
In the category of offering a little something different, but still related information...

The Heart of America Athletic Conference in the NAIA is moving forward with fall sports.

http://www.heartofamericaconference.com/article/4211.php

It will be interesting to watch how successful it is in conducting fall sports...regarding its precautions taken before games, and the rate of COVID-19 infections that come from the games.  Especially regarding how the football season progresses.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 21, 2020, 11:50:22 PM
I have been away from the boards because of very busy 2 weeks. July is usually a very busy month for me because of social "non-distancing" that happens every fall.

HCQ works! Please read the background material and the references in the "blue font". When we compare the outcome of public health policy recommended by our experts at the NIH, CDC and FDA versus what the experts at the Indian Council of Medical Research recommended, Dr Fauci, the CDC, the FDA and everyone else look pathetic. President Trump was right! HCQ works.

Give it early!  Give it often! Give it prophylactically to high risk individuals! HCQ works!

From the article, ...the US' death from COVID is 20 times higher than India's.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/what_made_asias_largest_slum_a_success_model_for_treating_covid19.html

Give everyone HCQ who wants to take it (or mandate it as people are talking about for the vaccine) and get on with life.




Update...  You may not see this at NYT, WaPo, NBC, CBS, ABC MSNBC and any other Main Stream Media (MSM) platform.

Google was caught blacklisting conservative sites such as American Thinker. The "technical" glitch was uncovered and reported yesterday.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/google_blacklists_american_thinker_and_reverses_it_after_its_blacklisting_of_conservative_sites_is_exposed.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on July 22, 2020, 10:00:59 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 21, 2020, 11:50:22 PM
I have been away from the boards because of very busy 2 weeks. July is usually a very busy month for me because of social "non-distancing" that happens every fall.

:D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on July 22, 2020, 10:45:38 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 21, 2020, 11:50:22 PM
I have been away from the boards because of very busy 2 weeks. July is usually a very busy month for me because of social "non-distancing" that happens every fall.

HCQ works! Please read the background material and the references in the "blue font". When we compare the outcome of public health policy recommended by our experts at the NIH, CDC and FDA versus what the experts at the Indian Council of Medical Research recommended, Dr Fauci, the CDC, the FDA and everyone else look pathetic. President Trump was right! HCQ works.

Give it early!  Give it often! Give it prophylactically to high risk individuals! HCQ works!

From the article, ...the US' death from COVID is 20 times higher than India's.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/what_made_asias_largest_slum_a_success_model_for_treating_covid19.html

Give everyone HCQ who wants to take it (or mandate it as people are talking about for the vaccine) and get on with life.




Update...  You may not see this at NYT, WaPo, NBC, CBS, ABC MSNBC and any other Main Stream Media (MSM) platform.

Google was caught blacklisting conservative sites such as American Thinker. The "technical" glitch was uncovered and reported yesterday.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/google_blacklists_american_thinker_and_reverses_it_after_its_blacklisting_of_conservative_sites_is_exposed.html

please tell me you were hacked....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on July 22, 2020, 10:52:33 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 21, 2020, 11:50:22 PM
I have been away from the boards because of very busy 2 weeks. July is usually a very busy month for me because of social "non-distancing" that happens every fall.

HCQ works! Please read the background material and the references in the "blue font". When we compare the outcome of public health policy recommended by our experts at the NIH, CDC and FDA versus what the experts at the Indian Council of Medical Research recommended, Dr Fauci, the CDC, the FDA and everyone else look pathetic. President Trump was right! HCQ works.

Give it early!  Give it often! Give it prophylactically to high risk individuals! HCQ works!

From the article, ...the US' death from COVID is 20 times higher than India's.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/what_made_asias_largest_slum_a_success_model_for_treating_covid19.html

Give everyone HCQ who wants to take it (or mandate it as people are talking about for the vaccine) and get on with life.




Update...  You may not see this at NYT, WaPo, NBC, CBS, ABC MSNBC and any other Main Stream Media (MSM) platform.

Google was caught blacklisting conservative sites such as American Thinker. The "technical" glitch was uncovered and reported yesterday.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/google_blacklists_american_thinker_and_reverses_it_after_its_blacklisting_of_conservative_sites_is_exposed.html
HCQ only one of several factors leading to India's experience.

The one study cited reported on HCQ plus Azithromycin, but there was no mention of use of Azithromycin in India. Much criticism of this case study follow the article. The cases were in NY State not India.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on July 22, 2020, 01:38:03 PM
There are currently 2734 clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov

242 relate to HCQ

Of those  70 are not yet recruiting
               107 are recruiting
                 8 are enrolling by invitation
                18 are active not recruiting
                10 are suspended
                4 are terminated
                19 are completed
                 6 are withdrawn
                 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: thescottharris on July 22, 2020, 08:40:44 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 21, 2020, 11:50:22 PM
I have been away from the boards because of very busy 2 weeks. July is usually a very busy month for me because of social "non-distancing" that happens every fall.

HCQ works! Please read the background material and the references in the "blue font". When we compare the outcome of public health policy recommended by our experts at the NIH, CDC and FDA versus what the experts at the Indian Council of Medical Research recommended, Dr Fauci, the CDC, the FDA and everyone else look pathetic. President Trump was right! HCQ works.

Give it early!  Give it often! Give it prophylactically to high risk individuals! HCQ works!

From the article, ...the US' death from COVID is 20 times higher than India's.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/what_made_asias_largest_slum_a_success_model_for_treating_covid19.html

Give everyone HCQ who wants to take it (or mandate it as people are talking about for the vaccine) and get on with life.




Update...  You may not see this at NYT, WaPo, NBC, CBS, ABC MSNBC and any other Main Stream Media (MSM) platform.

Google was caught blacklisting conservative sites such as American Thinker. The "technical" glitch was uncovered and reported yesterday.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/google_blacklists_american_thinker_and_reverses_it_after_its_blacklisting_of_conservative_sites_is_exposed.html
Yeah, hard pass on reading anything from American Thinker when there is a link at the top to another article whose headline starts out as "leftist radicals" and another headline with "Pelosi endorses anti-Jewishness." If I wanted to be indoctrinated with propaganda I'd just follow Trump on Twitter!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 23, 2020, 12:44:36 AM
Quote from: scotth on July 22, 2020, 08:40:44 PM

Yeah, hard pass on reading anything from American Thinker when there is a link at the top to another article whose headline starts out as "leftist radicals" and another headline with "Pelosi endorses anti-Jewishness." If I wanted to be indoctrinated with propaganda I'd just follow Trump on Twitter!
I will make it more palatable for you.

LA Times

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-06-24/dharavi-slum-in-mumbai-india-contained-covid-19

and a news article with a quote from WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus

http://newsonair.com/News?title=WHO-says-COVID-19-can-be-controlled%2C-Cites-Mumbai%26%2339%3Bs-Dharavi-as-example&id=393507

New York Gov Cuomo's health care policies caused more deaths (32,617) than all of India (29,890). As of today, worldometer showed New York's death rate at 1677 per million and India's at 22 per Million.

20 times more deaths in the US and the Fauci-led public health policy compared with the policy by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is shameful.

The US is not employing "best practices"!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 23, 2020, 05:41:54 AM
For those brave enough to read arguments contrary to their vested interest, here is this.

Coronavirus: Why everyone was wrong (https://medium.com/@vernunftundrichtigkeit/coronavirus-why-everyone-was-wrong-fce6db5ba809)

Beda M Stadler is the former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern, a biologist and professor emeritus.

Quote
This is not an accusation, but a ruthless taking stock [of the current situation]. I could slap myself, because I looked at Sars-CoV2- way too long with panic. I am also somewhat annoyed with many of my immunology colleagues who so far have left the discussion about Covid-19 to virologist and epidemiologist. I feel it is time to criticise some of the main and completely wrong public statements about this virus...

On our way back to normal, it would be good for us citizens if a few scaremongers apologised. Such as doctors who wanted a triage of over 80 year old Covid patients in order to stop ventilating them. Also media that kept showing alarmist videos of Italian hospitals to illustrate a situation that as such didn’t exist. All politicians calling for “testing, testing, testing” without even knowing what the test actually measures.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on July 23, 2020, 08:15:53 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 23, 2020, 12:44:36 AM
Quote from: scotth on July 22, 2020, 08:40:44 PM

Yeah, hard pass on reading anything from American Thinker when there is a link at the top to another article whose headline starts out as "leftist radicals" and another headline with "Pelosi endorses anti-Jewishness." If I wanted to be indoctrinated with propaganda I'd just follow Trump on Twitter!
I will make it more palatable for you.

LA Times

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-06-24/dharavi-slum-in-mumbai-india-contained-covid-19

and a news article with a quote from WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus

http://newsonair.com/News?title=WHO-says-COVID-19-can-be-controlled%2C-Cites-Mumbai%26%2339%3Bs-Dharavi-as-example&id=393507

New York Gov Cuomo's health care policies caused more deaths (32,617) than all of India (29,890). As of today, worldometer showed New York's death rate at 1677 per million and India's at 22 per Million.

20 times more deaths in the US and the Fauci-led public health policy compared with the policy by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is shameful.

The US is not employing "best practices"!

Except none of that talks about HCQ, which was the point of your original political propaganda. Those articles quite rightly mention the success of contact tracing, testing, education and strict quarantine, the methods that worked in China, South Korea and other areas but were NOT mandated here by those in charge until much too late. Your propaganda piece says one thing that is completely unsupported by the articles they quote.

If HCQ on it's own really worked, Brazil, where they are handing it out like candy, wouldn't be the hot mess it is. Despite President Trump's wishes, and his mouthpiece claims, HCQ has had no significant proven medical success. Other methods like testing, tracing, and quarantine have worked. The American experience has been an abject failure so far. Failure usually lands on the boss's desk. Responsibility starts at the top....
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 23, 2020, 08:39:35 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 23, 2020, 05:41:54 AM
For those brave enough to read arguments contrary to their vested interest, here is this.

Coronavirus: Why everyone was wrong (https://medium.com/@vernunftundrichtigkeit/coronavirus-why-everyone-was-wrong-fce6db5ba809)

Beda M Stadler is the former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern, a biologist and professor emeritus.

Quote
This is not an accusation, but a ruthless taking stock [of the current situation]. I could slap myself, because I looked at Sars-CoV2- way too long with panic. I am also somewhat annoyed with many of my immunology colleagues who so far have left the discussion about Covid-19 to virologist and epidemiologist. I feel it is time to criticise some of the main and completely wrong public statements about this virus...

On our way back to normal, it would be good for us citizens if a few scaremongers apologised. Such as doctors who wanted a triage of over 80 year old Covid patients in order to stop ventilating them. Also media that kept showing alarmist videos of Italian hospitals to illustrate a situation that as such didn't exist. All politicians calling for "testing, testing, testing" without even knowing what the test actually measures.

An interesting piece and some helpful perspective on some things. Sad that that gets lost in exaggeration (which is apparently his style) and misunderstanding about masking, as well as claims that COVID is gone for now, since it's a cold virus which disappears in summer.

If only.

The parts where he speaks to his area of expertise are interesting though, specifically with areas infected with SARS-Cov1. Unfortunately (or fortunately) that virus did not spread widely so doesn't do much for most of the world.

For context, this was published in German in mid-June.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 25, 2020, 03:40:25 AM
Clark University, Mount Holyoke College, UMass Boston and Dartmouth are most likely to 'perish,' according to new analysis

Lots of D3 names mentioned in a blog post by Scott Galloway, a NYU Marketing professor.  He categorized 436 US News & World Report Colleges according to Thrive- Survive- Struggle- Perish.

https://www.masslive.com/news/2020/07/clark-university-mount-holyoke-college-umass-boston-and-dartmouth-are-most-likely-to-perish-according-to-new-analysis.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 25, 2020, 05:55:44 AM
Quote from: jknezek on July 23, 2020, 08:15:53 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 23, 2020, 12:44:36 AM
Quote from: scotth on July 22, 2020, 08:40:44 PM

Yeah, hard pass on reading anything from American Thinker when there is a link at the top to another article whose headline starts out as "leftist radicals" and another headline with "Pelosi endorses anti-Jewishness." If I wanted to be indoctrinated with propaganda I'd just follow Trump on Twitter!
I will make it more palatable for you.

LA Times

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-06-24/dharavi-slum-in-mumbai-india-contained-covid-19

and a news article with a quote from WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus

http://newsonair.com/News?title=WHO-says-COVID-19-can-be-controlled%2C-Cites-Mumbai%26%2339%3Bs-Dharavi-as-example&id=393507

New York Gov Cuomo's health care policies caused more deaths (32,617) than all of India (29,890). As of today, worldometer showed New York's death rate at 1677 per million and India's at 22 per Million.

20 times more deaths in the US and the Fauci-led public health policy compared with the policy by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is shameful.

The US is not employing "best practices"!

Except none of that talks about HCQ, which was the point of your original political propaganda. Those articles quite rightly mention the success of contact tracing, testing, education and strict quarantine, the methods that worked in China, South Korea and other areas but were NOT mandated here by those in charge until much too late. Your propaganda piece says one thing that is completely unsupported by the articles they quote.

If HCQ on it's own really worked, Brazil, where they are handing it out like candy, wouldn't be the hot mess it is. Despite President Trump's wishes, and his mouthpiece claims, HCQ has had no significant proven medical success. Other methods like testing, tracing, and quarantine have worked. The American experience has been an abject failure so far. Failure usually lands on the boss's desk. Responsibility starts at the top....
Yes the article does talk about HCQ efficacy: a June 9, 2020 article in Tribune India.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/hcq-vitamin-tablets-help-mumbai-cops-beat-covid-19-96751

and, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) guidelines, from the newspaper article cited above

https://www.healthcareradius.in/clinical/26160-revised-icmr-advisory-on-hydroxychloroquine

QuoteThe revised guidelines have now recommended the prophylactic use of HCQ for all asymptomatic healthcare workers involved in containment and treatment of COVID19 and asymptomatic healthcare workers working in non-COVID hospitals/non-COVID areas of COVID hospitals/blocks, as well as asymptomatic frontline workers, such as surveillance workers deployed in containment zones and paramilitary/police personnel involved in COVID-19 related activities, asymptomatic household contacts of laboratory confirmed cases.
The above quote comes from the actual ICMR guidelines for prophylaxis (a 4 page pdf) the link of which is below.

https://www.icmr.gov.in/pdf/covid/techdoc/V5_Revised_advisory_on_the_use_of_HCQ_SARS_CoV2_infection.pdf

HCQ is not available in Texas. The governor has prohibited its use for COVID. On Thursday, I asked my physician for a prophylactic dose as recommended by ICMR, and he said he could not give me one.

President Trump liked HCQ and recommended its use in public health care policy. Drs Fauci's and Birx' did not and so HCQ was not a vital part in health care policy as it was in India. Public health policy in the various states has primarily followed CDC guidelines (Fauci and Birx). Gov Cuomo tied up all of the HCQ in NYS.  Michigan Governor Whitmer threatened doctors who prosecution in March if they prescribed it. The FDA has pulled its emergency use authorization on June 15, 2020, because of "cardiac" complications. The Media has frightened the populace with scare stories, but ask any physician when was the last patient in whom they saw the cardiac complications in their less-than-healthy/chonically ill lupus patients.

Ironically for Gov Whitmer, Henry Ford Hospital showed HCQ lowered death rates. (A CNN news article)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-detroit-study/index.html

Other large countries with very low death rates for COVID include Indonesia and Malaysia.

Here is a Reuters article via US News about HCQ use in Indonesia (Population 273M and COVID death rate of 17 per million)

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-05-26/exclusive-indonesia-major-advocate-of-hydroxychloroquine-told-by-who-to-stop-using-it

Finally jknezek, "propaganda"?  Why the ad hominem attack?  I have elaborated on the sources that the blogger used for the article, and provided more to make the case.

The failure of the health care policy by Drs Fauci and Birx has not been due to the widespread use of HCQ for treatment and prophylaxis as the President who have wanted.

In the meantime, the FDA has approved the $3000/dose remdesivir for Coronavirus, which will not save more lives. (It will only shorten hospital stays from 15 to 11 days)

The FDA has also given a $2B contract to Pfizer for a coronavirus vaccine that

Quote"... would need to be at least 50% more effective than a placebo in preventing or at least decreasing the severity of COVID-19 in order for the Food and Drug Administration to approve it, the agency said Tuesday."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/06/30/fda-coronavirus-vaccine-would-have-least-50-effective/5349964002/

Note the attendant insider trading that lines the pockets of those in the know with good connections to the FDA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/25/business/coronavirus-vaccine-profits-vaxart.html

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on July 25, 2020, 02:33:17 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 25, 2020, 03:40:25 AM
Clark University, Mount Holyoke College, UMass Boston and Dartmouth are most likely to 'perish,' according to new analysis

Lots of D3 names mentioned in a blog post by Scott Galloway, a NYU Marketing professor.  He categorized 436 US News & World Report Colleges according to Thrive- Survive- Struggle- Perish.

https://www.masslive.com/news/2020/07/clark-university-mount-holyoke-college-umass-boston-and-dartmouth-are-most-likely-to-perish-according-to-new-analysis.html
Went through and I counted 169 D3 schools in the list... here were their listings

Thrive: Amherst College, Birmingham Southern College, Bowdoin College, California Institute of Technology, Carleton College, Colby College, Gallaudet University, Hamilton College, Harvey Mudd College, Johns Hopkins University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Middlebury College, Pomona College, Rhodes College, Rowan University, Swarthmore College, Union College, Washington and Lee University, Washington University in St Louis, Westminster College (PA), Williams College

Survive: Bates College, Bryn Mawr College, Carnegie Mellon University, Case Western Reserve University, Claremont McKenna College, CUNY City College, Emory University, Grinnell College, Haverford College, Montclair State University, New York University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University-Camden, Rutgers University-Newark, Stevens Institute of Technology, SUNY Buffalo State, Tufts University, University of Chicago, University of Massachusetts-Boston, University of Minnesota-Morris, University of Rochester, Vassar College, Wellesley College, Wesleyan University, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Struggle: Albion College, Allegheny College, Austin College, Berea College, Catholic University of America, Centenary College of Louisiana, Central College, Centre College, Chatham University, Clarkson University, Coe College, Colorado College, Concordia University-Wisconsin, Connecticut College, Elizabethtown College, Emory & Henry College, Gettysburg College, Goucher College, Guilford College, Gustavus Adolphus College, Hampden-Sydney College, Hanover College, Hartwick College, Hendrix College, Hobart William Smith Colleges, Hope College, Houghton College, Illinois College, Illinois Wesleyan University, Juniata College, Kalamazoo College, Lesley University, Lewis & Clark College, Lycoming College, Mary Baldwin University, Millsaps College,
Misericordia University, Monmouth College, Moravian College, Muhlenberg College, Occidental College, Randolph College, Randolph-Macon College, Ripon College, Roanoke College, Saint John Fisher College, Saint Johns University, Saint Norbert College, Saint Vincent College, Salem College, Scripps College, Sewanee - The University of the South, Shenandoah University, Simpson College, Southwestern University, St Olaf College, Susquehanna University, Sweet Briar College, Transylvania University, University of Puget Sound, University of Saint Joseph (CT), University of St Thomas, Ursinus College, Wabash College, Warren Wilson College, Washington & Jefferson College, Washington College, Wells College, Wesleyan College, Western New England University, Westminster College, Wheaton College (IL), Whitman College, Whittier College, Widener University, Wittenberg University

Perish: Augustana College, Bard College, Beloit College, Bethel University, Brandeis University, Chapman University, Clark University, Concordia College at Moorhead, Cornell College, Covenant College, Denison University, DePauw University, Dickinson College, Drew University, Earlham College, Franklin and Marshall College, Franklin College, George Fox University, Illinois Institute of Technology, Kenyon College, Knox College, Lake Forest College, Lawrence University, Luther College, Macalester College, Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, Mount Holyoke College, Oberlin College, Ohio Wesleyan University, Pacific University, Pitzer College, Sarah Lawrence College, Skidmore College, Smith College, St Lawrence University, The College of Saint Scholastica, The College of Wooster, The Sage Colleges, Trinity College (CT), University of California-Santa Cruz, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, University of New England, Wartburg College, Wilkes University, Willamette University, Yeshiva University


Interesting for the Claremont colleges... Harvey Mudd and Pomona are Thrive, Claremont McKenna is Survive, Scripps is Struggle, and Pitzer is Perish
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on July 25, 2020, 03:20:03 PM
Thanks for pulling them out and listing them here, Griz. Could you edit the list by differentiating by state the schools that share a name with other D3 schools, though?

I'm looking at the list and I see Westminster, Trinity, Wheaton, and St. Joseph that fall into that category, and there may be others.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on July 25, 2020, 04:43:58 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 25, 2020, 03:20:03 PM
Thanks for pulling them out and listing them here, Griz. Could you edit the list by differentiating by state the schools that share a name with other D3 schools, though?

I'm looking at the list and I see Westminster, Trinity, Wheaton, and St. Joseph that fall into that category, and there may be others.

The Trinity is Trinity College; Trinity U is regional, not national which is where the author started.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 26, 2020, 01:27:42 AM
It would be interesting to know the methodology of that list. It seems awfully random. Smith has a $2B endowment. Hard to believe they can't weather this. Yeshiva has money, too, and the support of a giant religious community. Obviously, we're going to lose lot of schools, but I wouldn't trust this list.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 26, 2020, 07:30:27 AM
The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine published another interesting report on Thursday.  This time on masks.  I'll let them speak for themselves.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/

Quote
The increasing polarised and politicised views on whether to wear masks in public during the current COVID-19 crisis hides a bitter truth on the state of contemporary research and the value we pose on clinical evidence to guide our decisions.

Quote
Despite the clear requirement to carry out further large, pragmatic trials a decade later, only six had been published: five in healthcare workers and one in pilgrims. 3 This recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.

Quote
Many countries have gone onto mandate masks for the public in various settings. Several others  – Denmark, and Norway – generally do not.  Norway’s Institute for Public Health reported that if masks did work then any difference in infection rates would be small when infection rates are low: assuming 20% asymptomatics and a risk reduction of 40% for wearing masks, 200 000 people would need to wear one to prevent one new infection per week.

Quote
We consider it is unwise to infer causation based on regional geographical observations as several proponents of masks have done. Spikes in cases can easily refute correlations, compliance with masks and other measures is often variable, and confounders cannot be accounted for in such observational research.   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 26, 2020, 08:08:35 AM
This isn't tracking exactly the same thing, but it has a summary of the science behind current mask mandates.  https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-confused-about-masks-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

Makes are really only effective for infected people, so in an instance like the Colby protocol, where the whole population is being treated frequently, masks would be less important, but they're still not a bad failsafe. I can't find it now, but I saw one report from Europe that found (actual data in a limited setting, not a traditional replicable scientific study) that makes reduced the chances of infection in a crowd from 27% to 3%. I believe that's just based on droplets caught by the mask, but it's not nothing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on July 26, 2020, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 25, 2020, 04:43:58 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 25, 2020, 03:20:03 PM
Thanks for pulling them out and listing them here, Griz. Could you edit the list by differentiating by state the schools that share a name with other D3 schools, though?

I'm looking at the list and I see Westminster, Trinity, Wheaton, and St. Joseph that fall into that category, and there may be others.

The Trinity is Trinity College; Trinity U is regional, not national which is where the author started.

I know that. I've looked at the list. Anyone could look these up via the link and figure out which Trinity, and which Wheaton, and which Westminster, and which St. Joe, are named, but that's not the point. The point is that, if you're going to make a list like this as a quick reference for everybody, make it as clear as possible to which schools you're referring.

(And I don't want this to make it sound like I'm ungrateful to Griz for his work in putting the list together, because that's the opposite of my intention.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on July 26, 2020, 01:00:46 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 26, 2020, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 25, 2020, 04:43:58 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 25, 2020, 03:20:03 PM
Thanks for pulling them out and listing them here, Griz. Could you edit the list by differentiating by state the schools that share a name with other D3 schools, though?

I'm looking at the list and I see Westminster, Trinity, Wheaton, and St. Joseph that fall into that category, and there may be others.

The Trinity is Trinity College; Trinity U is regional, not national which is where the author started.

I know that. I've looked at the list. Anyone could look these up via the link and figure out which Trinity, and which Wheaton, and which Westminster, and which St. Joe, are named, but that's not the point. The point is that, if you're going to make a list like this as a quick reference for everybody, make it as clear as possible to which schools you're referring.

(And I don't want this to make it sound like I'm ungrateful to Griz for his work in putting the list together, because that's the opposite of my intention.)
It was a valid request. I was just copying and pasting the schools while the state was in a different column.
It'd easier if schools would just avoid sharing names. Do it like usernames... Wheaton and Wheaton2, Westminster and xXWestminsterXx02 :D
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 26, 2020, 08:01:32 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 25, 2020, 03:40:25 AM
Clark University, Mount Holyoke College, UMass Boston and Dartmouth are most likely to 'perish,' according to new analysis

Lots of D3 names mentioned in a blog post by Scott Galloway, a NYU Marketing professor.  He categorized 436 US News & World Report Colleges according to Thrive- Survive- Struggle- Perish.

https://www.masslive.com/news/2020/07/clark-university-mount-holyoke-college-umass-boston-and-dartmouth-are-most-likely-to-perish-according-to-new-analysis.html

This is a funny article: a) the virus will kill everyone, b) the federal gov't should pay to keep universities afloat.

His two-by-two is dimensioned by "value" and "vulnerability" but could just as easily be labeled "endowment" and "online status".  If a school has a big endowment and has announced off-line then they are "thrive".  Big endowment and in-person?  Struggle.  Online and small endowment?  Survive.

The paper says the data hasn't been peer reviewed.  The data?  What about the rating methodology?  He shows no reason to believe it's valid or tested at all.  Bethel will go out of business?  I rate the odds of Bethel losing their constituency in the same range as Hell freezing over.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 26, 2020, 11:24:14 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 18, 2020, 02:04:20 AM
In this post from July 1st (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3880.msg1991012#msg1991012) I linked to the data on Texas hospital capacity.  We can take a look at what it said then and compare it to what it says now to see what is actually happening.

Then:

Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 01, 2020, 09:19:20 AM
https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101f

Data from the TX dept of health and human services.

RE: Texas.  You'll need to click around the visualization to find the numbers but there are 55.3k hospital beds in TX, of which 41.5k are occupied (75% capacity).  Of those 41.5k bedded patients, 6.5k are with CV (12% of capacity and 16% of demand).  1.4k ICU beds and 5.5k ventilators remained unused.  So it appears that in TX, at least, the covid outbreak can get three times worse before TX must start using additional capacity facilities.

Now:

There are 56.7k beds in Texas of which 46.2k are occupied (81% capacity).  Of those 46.2k bedded patients, 10.6k are CV positive (19% of capacity and 23% of demand) [we can infer from the totals that non-CV hospital demand has remained stable over this period at 35k-36k beds instead of declining as you intimate].  900 ICU beds and and 5.2k ventilators remain unused.

So has TX reached a point where the must start adding extra capacity?  It appears they are not even close to that point.  But where did the extra 1.4k beds come from?  I suspect they have been made available in the Dallas and Houston areas of the state which are running closer to 85% capacity (84% in Dallas and 88% in Houston).

And today?

There are 55k beds in Texas of which 43.6k are occupied (a decrease of 2.6k or almost a 5% reduction in demand in the last 9 days.  Of those 43.6k bedded patients, 10.1k are CV positive (again, an almost 5% reduction in nine days).  Non CV hospitalisation is at 33.5k, also a little less.  1.2k ICU beds remain unused (a 33% increase in capacity) along with 5.5k ventilators (a near 6% increase in capacity).  Dallas runs at 86% capacity and Houston at 82% capacity.

As it has all month, Texas looks fine in dealing with the challenges of the virus.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on July 27, 2020, 01:14:53 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on July 26, 2020, 01:00:46 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 26, 2020, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 25, 2020, 04:43:58 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 25, 2020, 03:20:03 PM
Thanks for pulling them out and listing them here, Griz. Could you edit the list by differentiating by state the schools that share a name with other D3 schools, though?

I'm looking at the list and I see Westminster, Trinity, Wheaton, and St. Joseph that fall into that category, and there may be others.

The Trinity is Trinity College; Trinity U is regional, not national which is where the author started.

I know that. I've looked at the list. Anyone could look these up via the link and figure out which Trinity, and which Wheaton, and which Westminster, and which St. Joe, are named, but that's not the point. The point is that, if you're going to make a list like this as a quick reference for everybody, make it as clear as possible to which schools you're referring.

(And I don't want this to make it sound like I'm ungrateful to Griz for his work in putting the list together, because that's the opposite of my intention.)
It was a valid request. I was just copying and pasting the schools while the state was in a different column.
It'd easier if schools would just avoid sharing names. Do it like usernames... Wheaton and Wheaton2, Westminster and xXWestminsterXx02 :D

Maybe have some sort of multi-sport playoff to determine who gets to keep the name, and who has to change it to something else.

Those are some big stakes. Heck, I'd pay to see those contests on a livestream.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: fantastic50 on July 27, 2020, 10:15:59 AM
Regarding the Galloway blog post, I found the methodology for the vulnerability level to be shoddy. 

Per-capita endowment percentile makes sense, as it is a measure of financial resources.  However, that is equally weighted with percentile of international student percentage, i.e. what percentage of colleges/universities have a lower percentage of internationals than this one. The latter leads to some near-elite SLACs with 10-20% internationals (Oberlin, Kenyon, Macalester, etc.) being predicted to "perish."  At the same time, any institution that is almost exclusively domestic students (1-2% internationals) gets a very good score.  Because of that, already-shaky institutions with very few internationals are predicted to only "struggle" even if they have a small endowment.  Also, the use of sticker-price (rather than "net") tuition seems odd, when comparing public & private institutions with very different pricing models.  It seems to me that St. Lawrence or Skidmore can replace their international students a lot more easily than (insert mediocre regional SLAC with declining enrollment) can overcome a lack of market appeal and financial reserves.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 29, 2020, 06:58:04 PM
Wait, what's this?  It can't be so!  Sweden, who approached this pandemic with the time-tested approach to every pandemic ever, is on the downward slope when the rest of Europe who decided to pursue a previously untested approach of trying to shut whole countries down is rebounding as the virus gains steam again?  How can that possibly be?  Surely there is no lesson to be learned here about arrogance, panic and intellectual overconfidence.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeCf83zU8AA8nBB?format=jpg&name=medium)

It would be funny if it weren't sad how little introspection and intellectual rigour the panic! crowd applied to this known scenario.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 29, 2020, 07:44:52 PM
It does indeed look as though Sweden is finally getting out of its first wave, so ... yeah.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 29, 2020, 09:51:24 PM
Meanwhile, in America, we are further from getting under the epidemic threshold classification than we were when last discussed.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

QuoteBased on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) increased from week 26 – week 28 (June 27 – July 11) for the first time since mid-April. The percentage for week 29 is 9.1% and currently lower than the percentage during week 28 (11.5%); however,the percentage remains above the epidemic threshold. These percentages will likely change as more death certificates are processed.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on July 30, 2020, 09:13:51 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 29, 2020, 06:58:04 PM
Wait, what's this?  It can't be so!  Sweden, who approached this pandemic with the time-tested approach to every pandemic ever, is on the downward slope when the rest of Europe who decided to pursue a previously untested approach of trying to shut whole countries down is rebounding as the virus gains steam again?  How can that possibly be?  Surely there is no lesson to be learned here about arrogance, panic and intellectual overconfidence.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeCf83zU8AA8nBB?format=jpg&name=medium)

It would be funny if it weren't sad how little introspection and intellectual rigour the panic! crowd applied to this known scenario.

Sweden really does act as a very interesting case study.  The country is very similar to Pennsylvania in population and urban environment, 12.7 million/10.23 million.  Philly, Pittsburgh, Lehigh Valley/ Stockholm, Malmo, Gothenburg.  Total deaths: Sweden, 5730; PA, 7212.  Both regions are past the spike and have now gained better control of the spread.  The big difference is that Sweden did not shut down their economy, they allowed kids to stay in school and they protected their at risk population (isolated the elderly, N95 masks on high risk population). 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 30, 2020, 09:22:17 AM
If you're talking just death toll, advanced warning has been the difference. Keeping nursing homes closed up has kept death numbers a lot lower than infections in places with late surges. In Delaware, something like 80% of our deaths were nursing home residents and the vast majority of those happened in March or April. I did hear recently though they think as much as 75 or 80% of the total US population has yet to be exposed. That's my real interest with Sweden's plan. Were they able to have more people exposed and thus prevent or limit later spikes. I imagine only the next few months will tell.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on July 30, 2020, 09:46:48 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 30, 2020, 09:22:17 AM
If you're talking just death toll, advanced warning has been the difference. Keeping nursing homes closed up has kept death numbers a lot lower than infections in places with late surges. In Delaware, something like 80% of our deaths were nursing home residents and the vast majority of those happened in March or April. I did hear recently though they think as much as 75 or 80% of the total US population has yet to be exposed. That's my real interest with Sweden's plan. Were they able to have more people exposed and thus prevent or limit later spikes. I imagine only the next few months will tell.

Same in PA, 81% of deaths are Nursing Home residents
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 30, 2020, 09:53:59 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 30, 2020, 09:22:17 AM
If you're talking just death toll, advanced warning has been the difference. Keeping nursing homes closed up has kept death numbers a lot lower than infections in places with late surges. In Delaware, something like 80% of our deaths were nursing home residents and the vast majority of those happened in March or April. I did hear recently though they think as much as 75 or 80% of the total US population has yet to be exposed. That's my real interest with Sweden's plan. Were they able to have more people exposed and thus prevent or limit later spikes. I imagine only the next few months will tell.

From what I've found, Sweden's public health agency suggests a 6% infection rate and the "best case" estimates from other studies suggest up to 15% infection. There is hope (but not certainty) that the herd immunity threshold is much lower than the 60% estimates most commonly discussed, but that's a gamble and there is still a long way to go to reach that.
And it's not as if Sweden's economy didn't take the same hit as the other Scandi countries with similar demographics. We'll see how it develops.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 30, 2020, 09:56:31 AM
From the beginning they talked about the need to shut down only as much as your hospital capacity dictates. It feels like some countries have a much higher percentage of beds than others.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on July 30, 2020, 10:32:43 AM
Quote from: jamtod on July 30, 2020, 09:53:59 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 30, 2020, 09:22:17 AM
If you're talking just death toll, advanced warning has been the difference. Keeping nursing homes closed up has kept death numbers a lot lower than infections in places with late surges. In Delaware, something like 80% of our deaths were nursing home residents and the vast majority of those happened in March or April. I did hear recently though they think as much as 75 or 80% of the total US population has yet to be exposed. That's my real interest with Sweden's plan. Were they able to have more people exposed and thus prevent or limit later spikes. I imagine only the next few months will tell.

From what I've found, Sweden's public health agency suggests a 6% infection rate and the "best case" estimates from other studies suggest up to 15% infection. There is hope (but not certainty) that the herd immunity threshold is much lower than the 60% estimates most commonly discussed, but that's a gamble and there is still a long way to go to reach that.
And it's not as if Sweden's economy didn't take the same hit as the other Scandi countries with similar demographics. We'll see how it develops.

Clearly they took a hit economically, the European economy can't be separated by country.  However, restaurants, stores and schools did remain open.  However, they did not succeed in protecting the nursing homes either, vast majority of their deaths are also nursing home residents.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 30, 2020, 11:10:20 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on July 30, 2020, 10:32:43 AM
Quote from: jamtod on July 30, 2020, 09:53:59 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 30, 2020, 09:22:17 AM
If you're talking just death toll, advanced warning has been the difference. Keeping nursing homes closed up has kept death numbers a lot lower than infections in places with late surges. In Delaware, something like 80% of our deaths were nursing home residents and the vast majority of those happened in March or April. I did hear recently though they think as much as 75 or 80% of the total US population has yet to be exposed. That's my real interest with Sweden's plan. Were they able to have more people exposed and thus prevent or limit later spikes. I imagine only the next few months will tell.

From what I've found, Sweden's public health agency suggests a 6% infection rate and the "best case" estimates from other studies suggest up to 15% infection. There is hope (but not certainty) that the herd immunity threshold is much lower than the 60% estimates most commonly discussed, but that's a gamble and there is still a long way to go to reach that.
And it's not as if Sweden's economy didn't take the same hit as the other Scandi countries with similar demographics. We'll see how it develops.

Clearly they took a hit economically, the European economy can't be separated by country.  However, restaurants, stores and schools did remain open.  However, they did not succeed in protecting the nursing homes either, vast majority of their deaths are also nursing home residents.

It seems nursing homes and poor immigrant populations took a major hit early on, as the more vulnerable populations. I still have yet to see a viable plan for isolating and protecting these incredibly vulnerable populations that doesn't involve sacrifices from the rest of society or that takes into account the significant number of people considered "vulnerable" due to age or health conditions that are in our midst, unable to be truly walled off.

Without getting too much into it, there are elements of the Swedish health system, general levels of health, and some other cultural factors that improved their outcome significantly compared to what other countries may have seen with similar measures. So in one sense, it could be considered an ideal country for that experiment (ie, they social distanced fairly well and trusted government guidance without it needing to be imposed) and also makes it difficult to apply their outcome to other places.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 30, 2020, 12:30:46 PM
Quote from: jamtod on July 30, 2020, 11:10:20 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on July 30, 2020, 10:32:43 AM
Quote from: jamtod on July 30, 2020, 09:53:59 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 30, 2020, 09:22:17 AM
If you're talking just death toll, advanced warning has been the difference. Keeping nursing homes closed up has kept death numbers a lot lower than infections in places with late surges. In Delaware, something like 80% of our deaths were nursing home residents and the vast majority of those happened in March or April. I did hear recently though they think as much as 75 or 80% of the total US population has yet to be exposed. That's my real interest with Sweden's plan. Were they able to have more people exposed and thus prevent or limit later spikes. I imagine only the next few months will tell.

From what I've found, Sweden's public health agency suggests a 6% infection rate and the "best case" estimates from other studies suggest up to 15% infection. There is hope (but not certainty) that the herd immunity threshold is much lower than the 60% estimates most commonly discussed, but that's a gamble and there is still a long way to go to reach that.
And it's not as if Sweden's economy didn't take the same hit as the other Scandi countries with similar demographics. We'll see how it develops.

Clearly they took a hit economically, the European economy can't be separated by country.  However, restaurants, stores and schools did remain open.  However, they did not succeed in protecting the nursing homes either, vast majority of their deaths are also nursing home residents.

It seems nursing homes and poor immigrant populations took a major hit early on, as the more vulnerable populations. I still have yet to see a viable plan for isolating and protecting these incredibly vulnerable populations that doesn't involve sacrifices from the rest of society or that takes into account the significant number of people considered "vulnerable" due to age or health conditions that are in our midst, unable to be truly walled off.

Without getting too much into it, there are elements of the Swedish health system, general levels of health, and some other cultural factors that improved their outcome significantly compared to what other countries may have seen with similar measures. So in one sense, it could be considered an ideal country for that experiment (ie, they social distanced fairly well and trusted government guidance without it needing to be imposed) and also makes it difficult to apply their outcome to other places.

Isn't that isolation what we saw in places like Arizona and Florida?  The rest of the state opened up almost entirely, but the nursing homes remained largely locked down?  Isn't that why we've seen the death toll stay low in these places?  The new people getting sick are all the less vulnerable people going about their lives over the vulnerable people still being isolated?

My grandparents are in a facility in Vermont - it's pretty independent living, but the lockdown rules there are crazy strict.  Vermont's got the lowest rates of infection in the country, largely because they're enforcing a super strict incoming travel restriction.  They haven't (until maybe this week, I didn't check) had a mask mandate, even.  The simply isolated the whole state and put extra restrictions on nursing homes.  The sacrifices have been born by out of state travelers and, presumably, Vermont's summer tourism - but summer tourism is not the high season.  If their strict travel restrictions continue into September, then things become a real sacrifice, but right now they've done a pretty good job of keeping things as open as possible.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on July 30, 2020, 01:04:33 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 30, 2020, 12:30:46 PM
Quote from: jamtod on July 30, 2020, 11:10:20 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on July 30, 2020, 10:32:43 AM
Quote from: jamtod on July 30, 2020, 09:53:59 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 30, 2020, 09:22:17 AM
If you're talking just death toll, advanced warning has been the difference. Keeping nursing homes closed up has kept death numbers a lot lower than infections in places with late surges. In Delaware, something like 80% of our deaths were nursing home residents and the vast majority of those happened in March or April. I did hear recently though they think as much as 75 or 80% of the total US population has yet to be exposed. That's my real interest with Sweden's plan. Were they able to have more people exposed and thus prevent or limit later spikes. I imagine only the next few months will tell.

From what I've found, Sweden's public health agency suggests a 6% infection rate and the "best case" estimates from other studies suggest up to 15% infection. There is hope (but not certainty) that the herd immunity threshold is much lower than the 60% estimates most commonly discussed, but that's a gamble and there is still a long way to go to reach that.
And it's not as if Sweden's economy didn't take the same hit as the other Scandi countries with similar demographics. We'll see how it develops.

Clearly they took a hit economically, the European economy can't be separated by country.  However, restaurants, stores and schools did remain open.  However, they did not succeed in protecting the nursing homes either, vast majority of their deaths are also nursing home residents.

It seems nursing homes and poor immigrant populations took a major hit early on, as the more vulnerable populations. I still have yet to see a viable plan for isolating and protecting these incredibly vulnerable populations that doesn't involve sacrifices from the rest of society or that takes into account the significant number of people considered "vulnerable" due to age or health conditions that are in our midst, unable to be truly walled off.

Without getting too much into it, there are elements of the Swedish health system, general levels of health, and some other cultural factors that improved their outcome significantly compared to what other countries may have seen with similar measures. So in one sense, it could be considered an ideal country for that experiment (ie, they social distanced fairly well and trusted government guidance without it needing to be imposed) and also makes it difficult to apply their outcome to other places.

Isn't that isolation what we saw in places like Arizona and Florida?  The rest of the state opened up almost entirely, but the nursing homes remained largely locked down?  Isn't that why we've seen the death toll stay low in these places?  The new people getting sick are all the less vulnerable people going about their lives over the vulnerable people still being isolated?

My grandparents are in a facility in Vermont - it's pretty independent living, but the lockdown rules there are crazy strict.  Vermont's got the lowest rates of infection in the country, largely because they're enforcing a super strict incoming travel restriction.  They haven't (until maybe this week, I didn't check) had a mask mandate, even.  The simply isolated the whole state and put extra restrictions on nursing homes.  The sacrifices have been born by out of state travelers and, presumably, Vermont's summer tourism - but summer tourism is not the high season.  If their strict travel restrictions continue into September, then things become a real sacrifice, but right now they've done a pretty good job of keeping things as open as possible.

I'm not sure what specific measures Arizona or Florida took in terms of the nursing homes. Some have had greater success than others, but I'm not an expert on the best practices there. Even with nursing homes, you have nurses and workers that are going in and out and may have wide variances in what level of sacrifice or risk they are taking, except for the rare cases where we've seen nursing home workers completely isolate with their residences for a time (I think there were stories from Italy about this). My other thoughts on this would veer too far from what is relevant to this board (if it hasn't already).

But this is also just one level of vulnerable folks. The vulnerable are also our parents who live at home, our spouses who have immune-compromising illnesses, etc.
A lot to balance and no simple answers, it just doesn't lend itself well to good faith discussions when the solutions are oversimplified or boiled down to fear or panic.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on July 31, 2020, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 29, 2020, 07:44:52 PM
It does indeed look as though Sweden is finally getting out of its first wave, so ... yeah.

So quick with the quip, Pat.  It's easy to wallow in misery and gloom.  Pat yourself on the back.  Keep that glass half empty at every opportunity.  I'm sure if you just hope hard enough then you'll be able to ignore every indication that your gloomy perspective is dead wrong.  Weak and wrong.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on July 31, 2020, 10:46:18 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 31, 2020, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 29, 2020, 07:44:52 PM
It does indeed look as though Sweden is finally getting out of its first wave, so ... yeah.

So quick with the quip, Pat.  It's easy to wallow in misery and gloom.  Pat yourself on the back.  Keep that glass half empty at every opportunity.  I'm sure if you just hope hard enough then you'll be able to ignore every indication that your gloomy perspective is dead wrong.  Weak and wrong.

Um... we've lost 155,000 Americans to this disease in six months and we are still losing over 1000 a day. Gloomy is pretty accurate. I mean sure, it's not the millions that were the worst case projection, but it's pretty ugly.

The only 2 American Wars that cost more lives were WWII and the Civil War.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on July 31, 2020, 11:18:12 PM
Quote from: jknezek on July 31, 2020, 10:46:18 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 31, 2020, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 29, 2020, 07:44:52 PM
It does indeed look as though Sweden is finally getting out of its first wave, so ... yeah.

So quick with the quip, Pat.  It's easy to wallow in misery and gloom.  Pat yourself on the back.  Keep that glass half empty at every opportunity.  I'm sure if you just hope hard enough then you'll be able to ignore every indication that your gloomy perspective is dead wrong.  Weak and wrong.

Um... we've lost 155,000 Americans to this disease in six months and we are still losing over 1000 a day. Gloomy is pretty accurate. I mean sure, it's not the millions that were the worst case projection, but it's pretty ugly.

The only 2 American Wars that cost more lives were WWII and the Civil War.
The virus is just getting started.  There will be at least 1.5 million lives lost unless we get a good vaccine.
I guess my glass is broken.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 01, 2020, 01:47:24 AM
Quote from: jamtod on July 29, 2020, 09:51:24 PM
Meanwhile, in America, we are further from getting under the epidemic threshold classification than we were when last discussed.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

QuoteBased on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) increased from week 26 – week 28 (June 27 – July 11) for the first time since mid-April. The percentage for week 29 is 9.1% and currently lower than the percentage during week 28 (11.5%); however,the percentage remains above the epidemic threshold. These percentages will likely change as more death certificates are processed.


Wait.  First it's deny that I'm reading it correctly, never acknowledging I was until you can turn the message the other direction?  A profile in intellectual integrity there.

But since you think it's in your favor you'll accept it as authoritative?  I'll hold you to that.  Let's come back in a couple weeks.  See what it says then.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 01, 2020, 01:58:32 AM
Quote from: jknezek on July 31, 2020, 10:46:18 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 31, 2020, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 29, 2020, 07:44:52 PM
It does indeed look as though Sweden is finally getting out of its first wave, so ... yeah.

So quick with the quip, Pat.  It's easy to wallow in misery and gloom.  Pat yourself on the back.  Keep that glass half empty at every opportunity.  I'm sure if you just hope hard enough then you'll be able to ignore every indication that your gloomy perspective is dead wrong.  Weak and wrong.

Um... we've lost 155,000 Americans to this disease in six months and we are still losing over 1000 a day. Gloomy is pretty accurate. I mean sure, it's not the millions that were the worst case projection, but it's pretty ugly.

The only 2 American Wars that cost more lives were WWII and the Civil War.

Remember the Hong Kong flu in '68?  100k deaths in the US when the population was 205 million.  That would be... 249k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html

Remember the epidemic of '57?  That was 116k deaths in the US with a population of 178 million.  Or... 287k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1957-1958-pandemic.html


Perspective.  This event is neither unique nor exceptional.  The response is unprecedented, that's for certain.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 01, 2020, 02:06:48 AM
Quote from: jamtod on July 29, 2020, 09:51:24 PM
Meanwhile, in America, we are further from getting under the epidemic threshold classification than we were when last discussed.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

QuoteBased on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) increased from week 26 – week 28 (June 27 – July 11) for the first time since mid-April. The percentage for week 29 is 9.1% and currently lower than the percentage during week 28 (11.5%); however,the percentage remains above the epidemic threshold. These percentages will likely change as more death certificates are processed.

At least when I quoted from the report I also quoted the parts that hedged the point I was making.  I trusted you to do the same.  My mistake.

Quote
Nationally, levels of influenza-like illness (ILI) are below baseline but higher than typically seen at this time of year. Indicators that track ILI and COVID-19-like illness (CLI) showed decreases nationally from week 29 to week 30, with decreasing or stable levels in nearly all regions of the country. Nationally, the percentage of laboratory tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 remained stable from week 29 to week 30 but increased in six of ten HHS regions. Weekly hospitalization rates and mortality attributed to COVID-19 declined during week 30 but may change as more data for admissions and deaths occurring during the most recent weeks are received. Mortality attributed to COVID-19 remains above the epidemic threshold.

I never said it was below the threshold.  I said it was approaching and would soon fall under.  Same holds true.  It's hovering just above - for mortality only.  And that's a near miss thing.

So I look forward to you returning to this reporting in a few weeks.  The trend has been steady and certain.  We know where it's heading.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on August 01, 2020, 03:34:44 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 01, 2020, 01:47:24 AM
Quote from: jamtod on July 29, 2020, 09:51:24 PM
Meanwhile, in America, we are further from getting under the epidemic threshold classification than we were when last discussed.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

QuoteBased on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) increased from week 26 – week 28 (June 27 – July 11) for the first time since mid-April. The percentage for week 29 is 9.1% and currently lower than the percentage during week 28 (11.5%); however,the percentage remains above the epidemic threshold. These percentages will likely change as more death certificates are processed.


Wait.  First it's deny that I'm reading it correctly, never acknowledging I was until you can turn the message the other direction?  A profile in intellectual integrity there.

But since you think it's in your favor you'll accept it as authoritative?  I'll hold you to that.  Let's come back in a couple weeks.  See what it says then.

You are projecting an awful lot. Time to take a break again Oz
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on August 01, 2020, 07:20:55 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 01, 2020, 01:58:32 AM


Remember the Hong Kong flu in '68?  100k deaths in the US when the population was 205 million.  That would be... 249k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html

Remember the epidemic of '57?  That was 116k deaths in the US with a population of 178 million.  Or... 287k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1957-1958-pandemic.html


Perspective.  This event is neither unique nor exceptional.  The response is unprecedented, that's for certain.

Remember the Black Death that wiped out 1/3 of Europe? The point of progress is to learn, adapt and improve. It doesn't make the current event any less gloomy. But I sure hope we have fewer deaths with every pandemic and we have developed more effective responses. Otherwise we aren't making much progress.

If you want to believe the death toll worldwide from this virus is no big deal you are welcome to do so. Some of us are certainly gloomy about the lives lost. Just because it's been worse before doesn't mean it is good now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on August 01, 2020, 08:07:53 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 01, 2020, 01:58:32 AM
Quote from: jknezek on July 31, 2020, 10:46:18 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 31, 2020, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 29, 2020, 07:44:52 PM
It does indeed look as though Sweden is finally getting out of its first wave, so ... yeah.

So quick with the quip, Pat.  It's easy to wallow in misery and gloom.  Pat yourself on the back.  Keep that glass half empty at every opportunity.  I'm sure if you just hope hard enough then you'll be able to ignore every indication that your gloomy perspective is dead wrong.  Weak and wrong.

Um... we've lost 155,000 Americans to this disease in six months and we are still losing over 1000 a day. Gloomy is pretty accurate. I mean sure, it's not the millions that were the worst case projection, but it's pretty ugly.

The only 2 American Wars that cost more lives were WWII and the Civil War.

Remember the Hong Kong flu in '68?  100k deaths in the US when the population was 205 million.  That would be... 249k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html

Remember the epidemic of '57?  That was 116k deaths in the US with a population of 178 million.  Or... 287k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1957-1958-pandemic.html


Perspective.  This event is neither unique nor exceptional.  The response is unprecedented, that's for certain.

Thanks for doing this, was about to google it myself.  Plus, let's not start comparing a naturally occurring plague to wars.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 01, 2020, 01:17:29 PM
I love how one is comparing past plagues with their final death tolls to the current pandemic with a death toll that hasn't topped out, yet.

So, I guess we can extrapolate from that ... until we get to a final death toll and that is possibly higher than the others, it isn't that big a deal.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on August 01, 2020, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 01, 2020, 01:58:32 AM
Remember the Hong Kong flu in '68?  100k deaths in the US when the population was 205 million.  That would be... 249k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html

Remember the epidemic of '57?  That was 116k deaths in the US with a population of 178 million.  Or... 287k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1957-1958-pandemic.html


Perspective.  This event is neither unique nor exceptional.  The response is unprecedented, that's for certain.
Not inputting any opinions here, just double checking the numbers because they seemed a bit high to me...
census.gov (https://www.census.gov/popclock/) has the US population at 330M... that would mean 100k deaths from 205M in 1968 would be 161k today and 116k deaths with a 178M population in 1957 would be 215k today.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 01, 2020, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 31, 2020, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 29, 2020, 07:44:52 PM
It does indeed look as though Sweden is finally getting out of its first wave, so ... yeah.

So quick with the quip, Pat.  It's easy to wallow in misery and gloom.  Pat yourself on the back.  Keep that glass half empty at every opportunity.  I'm sure if you just hope hard enough then you'll be able to ignore every indication that your gloomy perspective is dead wrong.  Weak and wrong.

It's not a quip, it is looking at the data and giving a measured, reasonable reading of it. I'm sorry if that is contrary to yours.

I understand that you always take the absolute brightest possible angle on every bit of news regarding COVID-19, but none of that optimism is going to bring back a Johnnie-Tommie game this fall. The reality on the ground up here is a little different, and while "half empty" is not a fun perspective, it is better than false optimism, at least to me.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 01, 2020, 03:14:06 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 01, 2020, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 31, 2020, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 29, 2020, 07:44:52 PM
It does indeed look as though Sweden is finally getting out of its first wave, so ... yeah.

So quick with the quip, Pat.  It's easy to wallow in misery and gloom.  Pat yourself on the back.  Keep that glass half empty at every opportunity.  I'm sure if you just hope hard enough then you'll be able to ignore every indication that your gloomy perspective is dead wrong.  Weak and wrong.

It's not a quip, it is looking at the data and giving a measured, reasonable reading of it. I'm sorry if that is contrary to yours.

I understand that you always take the absolute brightest possible angle on every bit of news regarding COVID-19, but none of that optimism is going to bring back a Johnnie-Tommie game this fall. The reality on the ground up here is a little different, and while "half empty" is not a fun perspective, it is better than false optimism, at least to me.

I would love to have a extremely optimistic approach to all of this ... the reality of things just doesn't allow it or at least doesn't make it change course, sadly.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on August 01, 2020, 04:04:10 PM
The discussion about past pandemics and how they were handled led me to this article from National Geographic about the varied approaches (and successes/failures) to the Spanish Flu. I found it a worthwhile read both for how it informs current approaches and just the historical aspects.

https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/history/2020/03/how-cities-flattened-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus

Also Pat - I'm really bummed that Johnnie-Tommie (blech at that order) won't be happening this fall. I wonder what kind of miracles it would take for it to happen in the spring, on multiple fronts?
Hazzben and myself should have tracked you down at Allianz last year.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 01, 2020, 06:04:37 PM
I would think that if the schools play any football this spring, it will be to play each other. But I'm not sure any set of likely scenarios makes it possible to happen in front of 40,000-plus. Currently, because U.S. Bank is classified as an indoor stadium, they are restricted to 250 attendees, and it would take some changes to change that.

I envision it happening -- if it can -- at Clemens Stadium, and not sure what I would expect to see permitted in terms of fans.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on August 02, 2020, 10:27:04 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on August 01, 2020, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 01, 2020, 01:58:32 AM
Remember the Hong Kong flu in '68?  100k deaths in the US when the population was 205 million.  That would be... 249k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html

Remember the epidemic of '57?  That was 116k deaths in the US with a population of 178 million.  Or... 287k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1957-1958-pandemic.html


Perspective.  This event is neither unique nor exceptional.  The response is unprecedented, that's for certain.
Not inputting any opinions here, just double checking the numbers because they seemed a bit high to me...
census.gov (https://www.census.gov/popclock/) has the US population at 330M... that would mean 100k deaths from 205M in 1968 would be 161k today and 116k deaths with a 178M population in 1957 would be 215k today.

At the current daily death rate of roughly 1100 we reach 161K in less than a week, 215K in a month and a half.  What will Dr. Oz' excuse du jour be next? Good thing he normally talks about football, because he's great at movin' dem goalposts. Not to mention that one would *hope* medicine has come a long, long way since either of these events, making the current event look even that much worse.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 07:29:38 PM
Quote from: jamtod on August 01, 2020, 03:34:44 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 01, 2020, 01:47:24 AM
Quote from: jamtod on July 29, 2020, 09:51:24 PM
Meanwhile, in America, we are further from getting under the epidemic threshold classification than we were when last discussed.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

QuoteBased on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) increased from week 26 – week 28 (June 27 – July 11) for the first time since mid-April. The percentage for week 29 is 9.1% and currently lower than the percentage during week 28 (11.5%); however,the percentage remains above the epidemic threshold. These percentages will likely change as more death certificates are processed.


Wait.  First it's deny that I'm reading it correctly, never acknowledging I was until you can turn the message the other direction?  A profile in intellectual integrity there.

But since you think it's in your favor you'll accept it as authoritative?  I'll hold you to that.  Let's come back in a couple weeks.  See what it says then.

You are projecting an awful lot. Time to take a break again Oz

You need to look up what projection means.  I back up every claim I type here with evidence.

Best you take a break.  Seems when you are faced with arguments you can't explain it's just insult from you. So you can PM politely but not publicly?  I wonder if that's troubling for you.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 07:31:25 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 01, 2020, 01:17:29 PM
I love how one is comparing past plagues with their final death tolls to the current pandemic with a death toll that hasn't topped out, yet.

So, I guess we can extrapolate from that ... until we get to a final death toll and that is possibly higher than the others, it isn't that big a deal.

I thought you had blocked me.  Click on my profile and add me to your block list.  Too dangerous.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 07:35:21 PM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on August 01, 2020, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 01, 2020, 01:58:32 AM
Remember the Hong Kong flu in '68?  100k deaths in the US when the population was 205 million.  That would be... 249k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html

Remember the epidemic of '57?  That was 116k deaths in the US with a population of 178 million.  Or... 287k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1957-1958-pandemic.html


Perspective.  This event is neither unique nor exceptional.  The response is unprecedented, that's for certain.
Not inputting any opinions here, just double checking the numbers because they seemed a bit high to me...
census.gov (https://www.census.gov/popclock/) has the US population at 330M... that would mean 100k deaths from 205M in 1968 would be 161k today and 116k deaths with a 178M population in 1957 would be 215k today.

Correct.  My mistake.

Remember those epidemics?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 07:36:52 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 01, 2020, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 31, 2020, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 29, 2020, 07:44:52 PM
It does indeed look as though Sweden is finally getting out of its first wave, so ... yeah.

So quick with the quip, Pat.  It's easy to wallow in misery and gloom.  Pat yourself on the back.  Keep that glass half empty at every opportunity.  I'm sure if you just hope hard enough then you'll be able to ignore every indication that your gloomy perspective is dead wrong.  Weak and wrong.

It's not a quip, it is looking at the data and giving a measured, reasonable reading of it. I'm sorry if that is contrary to yours.

I understand that you always take the absolute brightest possible angle on every bit of news regarding COVID-19, but none of that optimism is going to bring back a Johnnie-Tommie game this fall. The reality on the ground up here is a little different, and while "half empty" is not a fun perspective, it is better than false optimism, at least to me.

Where's the evidence that this is Sweden's first wave?

None of your pessimism is going to justify the fact that your gloom is unwarranted.  Johnnie-Tommie game.  Don't be a child.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 07:38:48 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on August 02, 2020, 10:27:04 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on August 01, 2020, 01:50:37 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 01, 2020, 01:58:32 AM
Remember the Hong Kong flu in '68?  100k deaths in the US when the population was 205 million.  That would be... 249k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html

Remember the epidemic of '57?  That was 116k deaths in the US with a population of 178 million.  Or... 287k equivalent deaths today.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1957-1958-pandemic.html


Perspective.  This event is neither unique nor exceptional.  The response is unprecedented, that's for certain.
Not inputting any opinions here, just double checking the numbers because they seemed a bit high to me...
census.gov (https://www.census.gov/popclock/) has the US population at 330M... that would mean 100k deaths from 205M in 1968 would be 161k today and 116k deaths with a 178M population in 1957 would be 215k today.

At the current daily death rate of roughly 1100 we reach 161K in less than a week, 215K in a month and a half.  What will Dr. Oz' excuse du jour be next? Good thing he normally talks about football, because he's great at movin' dem goalposts. Not to mention that one would *hope* medicine has come a long, long way since either of these events, making the current event look even that much worse.

What will be your excuse?  You *hope* that cowering in fear will make this less.  The misery your shameful attitude causes goes uncounted.  Hide in your basement.  No one stops you.  Demand the rest of the world hide as well?  A profile in courage.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 07:55:19 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 26, 2020, 11:24:14 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 18, 2020, 02:04:20 AM
In this post from July 1st (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3880.msg1991012#msg1991012) I linked to the data on Texas hospital capacity.  We can take a look at what it said then and compare it to what it says now to see what is actually happening.

Then:

Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 01, 2020, 09:19:20 AM
https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101f

Data from the TX dept of health and human services.

RE: Texas.  You'll need to click around the visualization to find the numbers but there are 55.3k hospital beds in TX, of which 41.5k are occupied (75% capacity).  Of those 41.5k bedded patients, 6.5k are with CV (12% of capacity and 16% of demand).  1.4k ICU beds and 5.5k ventilators remained unused.  So it appears that in TX, at least, the covid outbreak can get three times worse before TX must start using additional capacity facilities.

Now:

There are 56.7k beds in Texas of which 46.2k are occupied (81% capacity).  Of those 46.2k bedded patients, 10.6k are CV positive (19% of capacity and 23% of demand) [we can infer from the totals that non-CV hospital demand has remained stable over this period at 35k-36k beds instead of declining as you intimate].  900 ICU beds and and 5.2k ventilators remain unused.

So has TX reached a point where the must start adding extra capacity?  It appears they are not even close to that point.  But where did the extra 1.4k beds come from?  I suspect they have been made available in the Dallas and Houston areas of the state which are running closer to 85% capacity (84% in Dallas and 88% in Houston).

And today?

There are 55k beds in Texas of which 43.6k are occupied (a decrease of 2.6k or almost a 5% reduction in demand in the last 9 days.  Of those 43.6k bedded patients, 10.1k are CV positive (again, an almost 5% reduction in nine days).  Non CV hospitalisation is at 33.5k, also a little less.  1.2k ICU beds remain unused (a 33% increase in capacity) along with 5.5k ventilators (a near 6% increase in capacity).  Dallas runs at 86% capacity and Houston at 82% capacity.

As it has all month, Texas looks fine in dealing with the challenges of the virus.

Oh, oh.  It looks like "Dr Oz" was right.  Texas managed just fine.  Houston just fine.  Oh, the panic was unjustified?  Say it isn't so.  Ask yourselves: how did he know this?  How was he able to be so confident when we were not?  I'll give you the answer: I put my fears aside and thought with my rational brain and not my emotions.

Now where is Texas, just a week after our last check in?

There are 54.8k beds in Texas (perhaps they are closing a few beds as they don't need to maintain the capacity?) of which 43.1k are occupied (down just a couple hundred beds from our last check-in).  Of those 43.1k bedded patients, only 8.9k are Covid positive (a 1.2k decrease or 12% down).  Non-covid patients are at 34.2, up a smidge but essentially stable for the entire time we've been tracking Texas.  1.2k ICU beds remained unused, no change.  6.5k ventilators are available (another 16% increase in capacity.  Due to more being brought in or fewer used I do not know).  Dallas runs at 85% capacity (essentially the same for this whole month) and Houston runs at 85% capacity as well, also essentially unchanged.

Low and behold.  As predicted.  The one place where this virus got out of control, metro NYC, was due to an inhumane policy regarded aged and long term care patients with covid.  Protect the vulnerable and this epidemic is utterly manageable.  This isn't hopeless optimism from "Dr Oz" but cold hard evidence.  Our experience with the bug.  Time to accept good news, folks.  I know you don't want to but you can only cling bitterly to your doom for so long before it's just plain delusional.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 02, 2020, 07:57:01 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 29, 2020, 06:58:04 PM
Wait, what's this?  It can't be so!  Sweden, who approached this pandemic with the time-tested approach to every pandemic ever, is on the downward slope when the rest of Europe who decided to pursue a previously untested approach of trying to shut whole countries down is rebounding as the virus gains steam again?  How can that possibly be?  Surely there is no lesson to be learned here about arrogance, panic and intellectual overconfidence.

Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 07:36:52 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 01, 2020, 02:18:50 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 31, 2020, 09:16:50 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 29, 2020, 07:44:52 PM
It does indeed look as though Sweden is finally getting out of its first wave, so ... yeah.

So quick with the quip, Pat.  It's easy to wallow in misery and gloom.  Pat yourself on the back.  Keep that glass half empty at every opportunity.  I'm sure if you just hope hard enough then you'll be able to ignore every indication that your gloomy perspective is dead wrong.  Weak and wrong.

It's not a quip, it is looking at the data and giving a measured, reasonable reading of it. I'm sorry if that is contrary to yours.

I understand that you always take the absolute brightest possible angle on every bit of news regarding COVID-19, but none of that optimism is going to bring back a Johnnie-Tommie game this fall. The reality on the ground up here is a little different, and while "half empty" is not a fun perspective, it is better than false optimism, at least to me.

Where's the evidence that this is Sweden's first wave?

None of your pessimism is going to justify the fact that your gloom is unwarranted.  Johnnie-Tommie game.  Don't be a child.
It would be funny if it weren't sad how little introspection and intellectual rigour the panic! crowd applied to this known scenario.

Hi -- I was just reading the graph you posted, which shows Sweden's curve finally beginning to fall. Did we redefine the terminology while I wasn't looking?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeCf83zU8AA8nBB?format=jpg&name=medium)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 08:02:14 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 02, 2020, 07:57:01 PM\
Hi -- I was just reading the graph you posted, which shows Sweden's curve finally beginning to fall. Did we redefine the terminology while I wasn't looking?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeCf83zU8AA8nBB?format=jpg&name=medium)

A "second wave" is your begged question.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 08:04:49 PM
Again, for perspective.

New York, Texas, Florida and Arizona normalised to the date of peak infection.  You'll see that all but Arizona had very similar infection peaks.  But mortality outcomes are entirely different.  Not even in the same ballpark.  This is due to two things:  1) better protection of the vulnerable, particularly in aged care homes; and, 2) better treatment protocols in the hospital six months into this epidemic.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeRHLdcXYAEKTsu?format=png&name=small)

This is the reality.  We are on top of this if we'll only allow ourselves to recognise that fact.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on August 02, 2020, 08:10:54 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 07:29:38 PM
Quote from: jamtod on August 01, 2020, 03:34:44 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 01, 2020, 01:47:24 AM
Quote from: jamtod on July 29, 2020, 09:51:24 PM
Meanwhile, in America, we are further from getting under the epidemic threshold classification than we were when last discussed.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

QuoteBased on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) increased from week 26 – week 28 (June 27 – July 11) for the first time since mid-April. The percentage for week 29 is 9.1% and currently lower than the percentage during week 28 (11.5%); however,the percentage remains above the epidemic threshold. These percentages will likely change as more death certificates are processed.


Wait.  First it's deny that I'm reading it correctly, never acknowledging I was until you can turn the message the other direction?  A profile in intellectual integrity there.

But since you think it's in your favor you'll accept it as authoritative?  I'll hold you to that.  Let's come back in a couple weeks.  See what it says then.

You are projecting an awful lot. Time to take a break again Oz

You need to look up what projection means.  I back up every claim I type here with evidence.

Best you take a break.  Seems when you are faced with arguments you can't explain it's just insult from you. So you can PM politely but not publicly?  I wonder if that's troubling for you.

I'll just suggest you take a look at my previous comments on the COVID View epidemic threshold (and the current PIC data) and then consider that there is plenty of engagement all around with varying viewpoints and I find many of those discussions to be fruitful and worthwhile.

Edited to tone down unhelpful rhetoric
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 08:46:49 PM
Here we go.  An attempt to measure the consequences of the decisions being made to hide.  They are not consequence free. In the UK anyways.  Perhaps elsewhere these decisions carry no consequences.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/29/lockdown-has-killed-21000-people-say-experts/

Quote
Almost 2,700 people a week have died because of the effects of the coronavirus lockdown, analysis of official data suggests.

A study by economists and academics from Sheffield and Loughborough universities suggests that more than 21,000 people have died as a result of the measures, which were introduced in March.

The analysis examines Office for National Statistics (ONS) data in the eight weeks that followed the national lockdown.

Researchers said the findings show that "lockdown has killed 21,000 people" because the policy has had "significant unintended consequences" such as lack of access to critical healthcare and a collapse in Accident and Emergency attendances.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on August 02, 2020, 09:20:59 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 08:46:49 PM
Here we go.  An attempt to measure the consequences of the decisions being made to hide.  They are not consequence free. In the UK anyways.  Perhaps elsewhere these decisions carry no consequences.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/29/lockdown-has-killed-21000-people-say-experts/

Quote
Almost 2,700 people a week have died because of the effects of the coronavirus lockdown, analysis of official data suggests.

A study by economists and academics from Sheffield and Loughborough universities suggests that more than 21,000 people have died as a result of the measures, which were introduced in March.

The analysis examines Office for National Statistics (ONS) data in the eight weeks that followed the national lockdown.

Researchers said the findings show that "lockdown has killed 21,000 people" because the policy has had "significant unintended consequences" such as lack of access to critical healthcare and a collapse in Accident and Emergency attendances.

No doubt. This is a really sucky situation, where a lot of wrong decisions have been made and where there are countless unintended consequences of action that are often difficult to quantify or evaluate. With that as a starting point, perhaps there could be a good faith discussion, instead of assuming everyone who disagrees with me or you is cowering in fear or making decisions out of a disordered love of "freedom" at the expense of the common good.

I appreciated that this was mostly how our civil PM conversation went.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 05, 2020, 03:37:50 PM
Fall Championships Canceled: https://www.d3sports.com/notables/2020/08/fall-championships-cancelled-whats-next
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on August 06, 2020, 03:31:12 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 05, 2020, 03:37:50 PM
Fall Championships Canceled: https://www.d3sports.com/notables/2020/08/fall-championships-cancelled-whats-next

It's strange, I always believed this would be the path, I even advocated as such, but now that it's happened it doesn't feel any easier to take.

Dave, would you say now begins the time to get well and truly concerned for the future of many (a handful, a dozen, a few dozen, 100 or more?) Division III athletic departments/institutions?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 06, 2020, 04:18:41 PM
Part of that story that Dave linked talks about that, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on August 06, 2020, 04:19:43 PM
Now that we have reached this point (essentially no D3 football, less than 50% D2 and FCS, but 90% FBS playing) is it now clear to everyone that money rules NCAA sports?  If we want to say it is about safety, then the NCAA (or it's corporate sponsors) should be funding the testing of every athlete in every sport. 

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 06, 2020, 04:47:00 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on August 06, 2020, 04:19:43 PM
Now that we have reached this point (essentially no D3 football, less than 50% D2 and FCS, but 90% FBS playing) is it now clear to everyone that money rules NCAA sports?  If we want to say it is about safety, then the NCAA (or it's corporate sponsors) should be funding the testing of every athlete in every sport.
Daily
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on August 06, 2020, 05:01:56 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on August 06, 2020, 04:47:00 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on August 06, 2020, 04:19:43 PM
Now that we have reached this point (essentially no D3 football, less than 50% D2 and FCS, but 90% FBS playing) is it now clear to everyone that money rules NCAA sports?  If we want to say it is about safety, then the NCAA (or it's corporate sponsors) should be funding the testing of every athlete in every sport.
Daily

I mean, that's a nice statement to make and I'm sure it will be popular, but where in reality is the funding for that? There are 25,000 D-III football student-athletes alone.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 06, 2020, 05:09:35 PM
Quote from: Caz Bombers on August 06, 2020, 03:31:12 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 05, 2020, 03:37:50 PM
Fall Championships Canceled: https://www.d3sports.com/notables/2020/08/fall-championships-cancelled-whats-next

It's strange, I always believed this would be the path, I even advocated as such, but now that it's happened it doesn't feel any easier to take.

Dave, would you say now begins the time to get well and truly concerned for the future of many (a handful, a dozen, a few dozen, 100 or more?) Division III athletic departments/institutions?

Very concerned. I was asked to make a prediction at the new year  how many schools I thought would close their doors this year. I said 6-12. I think in some ways the pandemic has helped stem the tied for the time being as everyone is in this together ... but this will now push schools that are on the edge of the end.

The next year - or less than a year - will not be pleasant for a number of schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 06, 2020, 05:22:48 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 06, 2020, 05:09:35 PM


Very concerned. I was asked to make a prediction at the new year  how many schools I thought would close their doors this year. I said 6-12. I think in some ways the pandemic has helped stem the tied for the time being as everyone is in this together ... but this will now push schools that are on the edge of the end.

The next year - or less than a year - will not be pleasant for a number of schools.
If they fail, I hope it is not mid term.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 06, 2020, 05:26:45 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on August 06, 2020, 05:22:48 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 06, 2020, 05:09:35 PM


Very concerned. I was asked to make a prediction at the new year  how many schools I thought would close their doors this year. I said 6-12. I think in some ways the pandemic has helped stem the tied for the time being as everyone is in this together ... but this will now push schools that are on the edge of the end.

The next year - or less than a year - will not be pleasant for a number of schools.
If they fail, I hope it is not mid term.

Most colleges tend to announce at that time and not go under ... but we are also in very different times, so I don't want to assume anything.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on August 06, 2020, 05:51:30 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 06, 2020, 05:01:56 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on August 06, 2020, 04:47:00 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on August 06, 2020, 04:19:43 PM
Now that we have reached this point (essentially no D3 football, less than 50% D2 and FCS, but 90% FBS playing) is it now clear to everyone that money rules NCAA sports?  If we want to say it is about safety, then the NCAA (or it's corporate sponsors) should be funding the testing of every athlete in every sport.
Daily

I mean, that's a nice statement to make and I'm sure it will be popular, but where in reality is the funding for that? There are 25,000 D-III football student-athletes alone.

Pick a random D1 school, let's pick Rutgers.  The reason RU  can afford to play football is because that they are a member of the Big 10.  Google tells me that Big 10 revenue in 2018 was $759,000,000.  25,000 athletes x $100/test x 10 tests per athlete = $25,000,000.  Money rules NCAA sports
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 06, 2020, 07:01:27 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on August 06, 2020, 05:51:30 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 06, 2020, 05:01:56 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on August 06, 2020, 04:47:00 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on August 06, 2020, 04:19:43 PM
Now that we have reached this point (essentially no D3 football, less than 50% D2 and FCS, but 90% FBS playing) is it now clear to everyone that money rules NCAA sports?  If we want to say it is about safety, then the NCAA (or it's corporate sponsors) should be funding the testing of every athlete in every sport.
Daily

I mean, that's a nice statement to make and I'm sure it will be popular, but where in reality is the funding for that? There are 25,000 D-III football student-athletes alone.

Pick a random D1 school, let's pick Rutgers.  The reason RU  can afford to play football is because that they are a member of the Big 10.  Google tells me that Big 10 revenue in 2018 was $759,000,000.  25,000 athletes x $100/test x 10 tests per athlete = $25,000,000.  Money rules NCAA sports

Rutgers doesn't get a full share of conference revenue until 2027. Their entire athletic budget for 2019 was $103m and that represents a $45m shortfall that had to be covered by other institutional sources.

I'm not saying there aren't lots of savings to be had in a D1 athletic budget, but those departments are currently set up to take advantage of them.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 06, 2020, 11:41:04 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 02, 2020, 07:55:19 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 26, 2020, 11:24:14 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 18, 2020, 02:04:20 AM
In this post from July 1st (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3880.msg1991012#msg1991012) I linked to the data on Texas hospital capacity.  We can take a look at what it said then and compare it to what it says now to see what is actually happening.

Then:

Quote from: OzJohnnie on July 01, 2020, 09:19:20 AM
https://txdshs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/0d8bdf9be927459d9cb11b9eaef6101f

Data from the TX dept of health and human services.

RE: Texas.  You'll need to click around the visualization to find the numbers but there are 55.3k hospital beds in TX, of which 41.5k are occupied (75% capacity).  Of those 41.5k bedded patients, 6.5k are with CV (12% of capacity and 16% of demand).  1.4k ICU beds and 5.5k ventilators remained unused.  So it appears that in TX, at least, the covid outbreak can get three times worse before TX must start using additional capacity facilities.

Now:

There are 56.7k beds in Texas of which 46.2k are occupied (81% capacity).  Of those 46.2k bedded patients, 10.6k are CV positive (19% of capacity and 23% of demand) [we can infer from the totals that non-CV hospital demand has remained stable over this period at 35k-36k beds instead of declining as you intimate].  900 ICU beds and and 5.2k ventilators remain unused.

So has TX reached a point where the must start adding extra capacity?  It appears they are not even close to that point.  But where did the extra 1.4k beds come from?  I suspect they have been made available in the Dallas and Houston areas of the state which are running closer to 85% capacity (84% in Dallas and 88% in Houston).

And today?

There are 55k beds in Texas of which 43.6k are occupied (a decrease of 2.6k or almost a 5% reduction in demand in the last 9 days.  Of those 43.6k bedded patients, 10.1k are CV positive (again, an almost 5% reduction in nine days).  Non CV hospitalisation is at 33.5k, also a little less.  1.2k ICU beds remain unused (a 33% increase in capacity) along with 5.5k ventilators (a near 6% increase in capacity).  Dallas runs at 86% capacity and Houston at 82% capacity.

As it has all month, Texas looks fine in dealing with the challenges of the virus.

Oh, oh.  It looks like "Dr Oz" was right.  Texas managed just fine.  Houston just fine.  Oh, the panic was unjustified?  Say it isn't so.  Ask yourselves: how did he know this?  How was he able to be so confident when we were not?  I'll give you the answer: I put my fears aside and thought with my rational brain and not my emotions.

Now where is Texas, just a week after our last check in?

There are 54.8k beds in Texas (perhaps they are closing a few beds as they don't need to maintain the capacity?) of which 43.1k are occupied (down just a couple hundred beds from our last check-in).  Of those 43.1k bedded patients, only 8.9k are Covid positive (a 1.2k decrease or 12% down).  Non-covid patients are at 34.2, up a smidge but essentially stable for the entire time we've been tracking Texas.  1.2k ICU beds remained unused, no change.  6.5k ventilators are available (another 16% increase in capacity.  Due to more being brought in or fewer used I do not know).  Dallas runs at 85% capacity (essentially the same for this whole month) and Houston runs at 85% capacity as well, also essentially unchanged.

Low and behold.  As predicted.  The one place where this virus got out of control, metro NYC, was due to an inhumane policy regarded aged and long term care patients with covid.  Protect the vulnerable and this epidemic is utterly manageable.  This isn't hopeless optimism from "Dr Oz" but cold hard evidence.  Our experience with the bug.  Time to accept good news, folks.  I know you don't want to but you can only cling bitterly to your doom for so long before it's just plain delusional.

56.3k staffed beds, 44.6k occupied (79% capacity)
8.3k covid cases (down 7% in during the workweek)
Non-covid patients at 36.3k, on the high end for the range we've seen over the last six weeks
1.1k ICU remain available, about 100 more patients (we don't know if these are covid or non-covid patients)
6.5k ventilators (unchanged)
Dallas at 84% capacity (essentially unchanged)
Houston at 86% capacity (again, essentially unchanged)

At some point this unbroken track record of success in the Texas hospital system will have to break through and people will have to admit that the fears, panic and uncertainty were unjustified.  Entirely unjustified.  Because it was predictable from the beginning.  The hospital system was not overrun.  Non-covid patients continued to be treated the same as always.  In fact, the hospital system didn't even need to dip into surge capacity.

In other words it was an entirely predictable non-event.  This is a fact that should be celebrated instead of denigrated.  A shame that it isn't.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 07, 2020, 12:21:59 AM
FYI on COVID-19 around the world.

https://c19study.com/

Update on the numerous HCQ trials and studies around the world. Early and prophylactic works. Late (or not at all) doesn't.

In mid March, when the Indian Council on Medical Research*** was recommending HCQ for early treatment of affected people, prophylaxis for immediate family and others identified by contact tracing and for prophylaxis for health care workers, Dr Fauci was holding out for the $3+K /dose remdesivir that doesn't save lives and for the vaccine (for which he owns half of the patent and is estimated to be worth $500M). The contract for the vaccine has been awarded to Pfizer for $2B.

In late May, the WHO was chastising Indonesia for its use of HCQ.

According to www.worldometer.com as of today,

USA  492 deaths per million for 331 Million citizens

India 30 deaths per million for 1.38 B

Indonesia 20 deaths per million for 273M

Best practices for COVID19 now include early and generous use of HCQ, Z-Pak and Zinc.

Dr Fauci failed us.



*** https://www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/AdvisoryontheuseofHydroxychloroquinasprophylaxisforSARSCoV2infection.pdf
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 07, 2020, 07:16:52 AM
A study published by the B-I-L just today.  More to be done, I'm sure, but this study tested various drug cocktail combinations at different stages of infection.  It found that sometimes they could prevent infections, in others they found combinations which could kill the virus, others which could kill infected cells and others that could inhibit virus reproduction.

A hydroxychloroquine cocktail with some other drugs was found to prevent infection.  Could be useful in an aged care home, I imagine, in giving the oldies added resistance.  Or perhaps with police or other essential services.  It was also included in a combination that was mildly effective at limiting virus reproduction.  Other combinations which didn't include hydroxychloroquine were more effective at killing the virus or killing infected cells.

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bcp.14486

We can now return to our regularly scheduled tribalism.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 07, 2020, 06:56:14 PM
This virologist provides excellent insight into the effectiveness of HCQ, including the French and Swiss experience with using HCQ, then abruptly stopping its use and then resuming HCQ for early primary treatment on the country's Case Fatality Ratio Index. As the author states, the Fauci-Hahn model for treating COVID-19 has been disastrous for Americans.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 07, 2020, 08:03:21 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 07, 2020, 07:16:52 AM
A study published by the B-I-L just today.  More to be done, I'm sure, but this study tested various drug cocktail combinations at different stages of infection.  It found that sometimes they could prevent infections, in others they found combinations which could kill the virus, others which could kill infected cells and others that could inhibit virus reproduction.

A hydroxychloroquine cocktail with some other drugs was found to prevent infection.  Could be useful in an aged care home, I imagine, in giving the oldies added resistance.  Or perhaps with police or other essential services.  It was also included in a combination that was mildly effective at limiting virus reproduction.  Other combinations which didn't include hydroxychloroquine were more effective at killing the virus or killing infected cells.

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bcp.14486

We can now return to our regularly scheduled tribalism.
Thanks, Oz.

Model-informed drug repurposing is exciting to consider as we have a better understanding of molecular biology.

I found this news article interesting.  The paper has been posted online for review. Fenofibrate (Tricor) is such a familiar drug for clinicians and has a very favorable therapeutic and safety profile.  The way that it works in the lung tissue in vitro is  remarkable.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/existing-drug-may-downgrade-covid-threat-to-common-cold-level-jerusalem-study/

What we are seeing in the whole Wuhan SARS episode is the assault on the Big Pharma/ Big Government Industrial Complex, to borrow a concept highlighted by President Eisenhower in his January 1961 Farewell address, from the assaults by the great unwashed scientific outsiders. Knowledge is being dispersed instantly and outside the "approved channels".
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 08, 2020, 05:36:31 AM
At some point Sweden is going to become such an embarrassment that people will start pretending the country doesn't exist.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ee0nFuLWoAEJqR2?format=png&name=large)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on August 08, 2020, 07:46:44 AM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 08, 2020, 05:36:31 AM
At some point Sweden is going to become such an embarrassment that people will start pretending the country doesn't exist.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ee0nFuLWoAEJqR2?format=png&name=large)

And they never closed schools or businesses.........
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 08, 2020, 09:27:44 AM
Plus they have a strong social safety net, free health care, and people almost universally followed the public health guidelines in place.  I'll just point out, in Delaware, we kept 93% of the workforce working, limited gatherings, and wore masks. We did fine. Nowhere is going to be absolutely comparable to anywhere else, but following basic health guidelines is a key element large swaths of the US population just couldn't manage.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on August 08, 2020, 01:11:40 PM
Despite trying my best to understand the rules and hierarchy of college football, I remain confused.  In order to play an intercollegiate football game, it seems that there must be some level of approval from the state government, the NCAA board of governors, the individual league, and the school itself.  Am I correct that every entity in this chain has the option of cancelling the game? 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on August 08, 2020, 02:06:28 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on August 08, 2020, 01:11:40 PM
Despite trying my best to understand the rules and hierarchy of college football, I remain confused.  In order to play an intercollegiate football game, it seems that there must be some level of approval from the state government, the NCAA board of governors, the individual league, and the school itself.  Am I correct that every entity in this chain has the option of cancelling the game?

the NCAA BOG can only determine whether or not the playoffs happen. We have a small handful of D3 institutions still planning on fall football/sports despite everyone else postponing/cancelling and the playoffs cancelled.

"The league" is just the schools themselves making a series of decisions. For example, there is almost no such entity as "the Liberty League." It's two people in an office on the RPI campus, one of which is replaced every two years and the other has next to no executive powers.

The state government can, if it chooses, set conditions under which a contest may or may not go forward depending on the meeting of those conditions, sure. Isn't that obvious by this point?

Maybe I don't understand the question.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on August 08, 2020, 02:32:16 PM
Quote from: Caz Bombers on August 08, 2020, 02:06:28 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on August 08, 2020, 01:11:40 PM
Despite trying my best to understand the rules and hierarchy of college football, I remain confused.  In order to play an intercollegiate football game, it seems that there must be some level of approval from the state government, the NCAA board of governors, the individual league, and the school itself.  Am I correct that every entity in this chain has the option of cancelling the game?

the NCAA BOG can only determine whether or not the playoffs happen. We have a small handful of D3 institutions still planning on fall football/sports despite everyone else postponing/cancelling and the playoffs cancelled.

"The league" is just the schools themselves making a series of decisions. For example, there is almost no such entity as "the Liberty League." It's two people in an office on the RPI campus, one of which is replaced every two years and the other has next to no executive powers.

The state government can, if it chooses, set conditions under which a contest may or may not go forward depending on the meeting of those conditions, sure. Isn't that obvious by this point?

Maybe I don't understand the question.

So according to your interpretation of collegiate football, as long state guidelines are maintained, then football games can be played.  League really means nothing and the NCAA regulations only come into play if a national championship tournament is offered. (Except DI where the national championship has nothing to do with the NCAA).  Thanks
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 08, 2020, 03:05:07 PM

There's no way the NCAA can keep a member school from playing a sport in a given season.  If the school is following the sport guidelines (for practice time, scheduling, etc), and they can find an opponent willing to play, they're more than welcome to do so.

I know some basketball teams, at schools where students will be in person on campus, are still planning to start practice in October and play whoever they can find when November rolls around.

I imagine there may be leagues with more control over their members than others - that would depend on Bylaws - but most of the statements I've seen about leagues calling of fall sports have been worded, essentially, as all the members individually calling off fall sports.  Some leagues have only announced cancellation of league play, which would leave individual schools open to doing their own thing.

I'm not sure there's much point in figuring out the possibilities until we actually see students on campus somewhere.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 08, 2020, 11:14:50 PM
@jomtod. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

Interesting report from the CDC this week.  Covid remains above the epidemic threshold for mortality but they are counting all flu, pneumonia and C19 deaths together to reach the 7.8% of all deaths in the week which exceeds the threshold of 5.9%.

(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/08072020/images/nchs-mortality-report.gif)

Seems strange they don't break out covid confirmed cases specifically and instead actually include cases they know aren't covid related (influenza) to the metric, no?

Also this interesting graph in the report.

(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/08072020/images/lab-confirmed-hospitalizations-underlying.gif)

91% of Covid deaths have a co-morbidity.  Hypertension and obesity are the clear winners with half suffering at least one of them.  It would be interesting to see the breakout of the 9% who straight up died of the virus only.  I wonder what the age profile of that cohort is.  I can't find it in the CDC data.

Also, despite the rate of daily positive tests bouncing consistently around 60k, the number of hospitalisations is falling rapidly.  Again, in a less tribal time this would be worthy of celebration.

(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/08072020/images/lab-confirmed-hospitalizations-weekly.gif)

Lastly, and most relevantly to DIII, the rate of hospitalisations in the report for 18-29 year olds is 1 in every 1786 cases.  Total enrolment in MIAC schools (including both UST and St Scholastica) is 32.4k, meaning 18 students will be hospitalised in the entire MIAC if every single student is infected (minus any hospitalisations that have already occurred in that population over the last six months).

(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/08072020/images/lab-confirmed-hospitalizations.gif)

Of course, we posted here earlier a study from Oxford which highlighted that only 1 in every 67 hospitalisations died from Covid.  But that was in mid-June (and weighted heavily to the elderly) and had been falling steady so is certainly much lower than that now.  But even assuming it reflects the odds of a college-aged individual, that means less than 1/3 of one MIAC student will die from Covid this year (if they haven't already died in the last six months).  And for this we're shutting down football and everything else?

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on August 08, 2020, 11:40:18 PM
Quote from: OzJohnnie on August 08, 2020, 11:14:50 PM
@jomtod. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

Interesting report from the CDC this week.  Covid remains above the epidemic threshold for mortality but they are counting all flu, pneumonia and C19 deaths together to reach the 7.8% of all deaths in the week which exceeds the threshold of 5.9%.

(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/08072020/images/nchs-mortality-report.gif)

Seems strange they don't break out covid confirmed cases specifically and instead actually include cases they know aren't covid related (influenza) to the metric, no?

The 7.8% is really meaningless at this point on account of:
QuotePercentages for recent weeks will likely increase as more death certificates are processed.

I believe the % for week 29 was 12%, so week 30 was 12.6% and this has climbed every week since you originally posted noting the downward trend (despite all other metrics at that time suggesting things were going to get worse). Hospitalization and other rates have improved recently, as previously noted, so I anticipate the PIC will be dropping again soon. Certainly worthy of celebration, as long as it's not celebrated In crowded beaches and bars, or our progress will be quickly lost (again).

We'll see if it stays down, but I suspect we are far from out of the woods in terms of "epidemic threshold." Also, I believe the calculation for that is 7.2% but it's not an objective measure to say epidemic is over or not, lots of other factors considered.

Update/Correction: you were right that the current threshold would be 5.9% as the PIC rate as % of deaths from pneumonia and influenza-related illnesses should be even lower than the 7.2% threshold from a month ago or so based on seasonal baseline rates now.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on August 09, 2020, 09:07:48 PM
the P5 conferences and the rest of FBS will all fold up shop for the fall within 48 hours, and that will be that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on August 10, 2020, 10:04:58 AM
Quote from: Caz Bombers on August 09, 2020, 09:07:48 PM
the P5 conferences and the rest of FBS will all fold up shop for the fall within 48 hours, and that will be that.

or maybe the #WeWantToPlay movement that got hot on social media last night will give administrators the cover to keep going and allow themselves to keep making millions and bazillions of dollars. I don't know anymore! Everything changes every 10 seconds!!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jamtod on August 10, 2020, 10:36:47 AM
Sounds like Big 10 voted 12-2 to shut it down. PAC 12 is expected to follow and ACC and Big 12 are on the fence. SEC is trying to rally others to join them and play.

In terms of college athletes being low or no risk, from a death standpoint, that seems truthy though I've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence like this (edited to add: also just saw report from Red Sox Pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez out for the season due to some heart issues):

QuoteJoseph Duarte
@Joseph_Duarte

In a Facebook post, Houston defensive lineman Sedrick Williams said he's had complications with his heart after testing positive for COVID-19 in early July. "I really don't know the outcome or what's in store for me in the future."

Heart, lungs, etc. One study showed 80 out of 100 people examined (including many who were asymptomatic) showed some level of long-term tissue challenges. I think the median age range was in the 40s. This was the only study of that type that I'd seen and I didn't find anything about whether they examined 20ish year olds or not.

It's still early enough, so room for hope that given time, the body will heal itself up from these issues and that further investigation will show that it's not all that common and we're just hearing a lot of really loud anecdotes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 10, 2020, 01:03:10 PM
I think the concern that younger people can pass it along to older people is not talked about enough. I know my concern with my kids going to school is they end up bringing the virus back to us ... or their grandparents .. or someone else.

That really has to be better appreciated and respected. It may not hurt or kill younger people as much, but they being carriers is a scary thing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 10, 2020, 05:53:44 PM
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=ev7hd/sv26ba99wwms5530.jpg)

The off season has hit August and with it has come news of Division III Fall Championships being canceled for the same reason Winter Championships were derailed and Spring Championships pulled earlier this year: COVID 19 Pandemic.

The decision came on the heals of a vast majority of DIII institutions curtailing fall sports and many pushing winter sports starts on their campuses until January at the earliest.

What does this mean for the 2020-21 season of college basketball? Specifically what does it mean for Division III? Will there be a basketball season? Will it be a six-week-or-so-sprint? Or is there a way to adjust things?

On the Mid-Summer edition of the Hoopsville Podcast, we try and get some answers to those questions. We talk to one coach who actually has put together a proposal to start the season in January, with some changes to make it work including crowning a champion in April. And we talk to an administrator who also serves on the DIII Management Council to better under stand the decisions made to cancel championships and if shift a season like basketball is even possible.

Plus, we honor the best of the best in the last decade of Division III women's basketball. Gordon Mann joins us to discuss how the 2nd D3hoops.com Women's All-Decade came together (and hints of work on the men's list).

Guests include:
- Philip Ponder, Oglethorpe men's coach
- Jason Fein, Bates Athletics Director and DIII Management Council member
- Gordon Mann, D3hoops.com Senior Editor

And of course, there is always the Hoopsville Notebook. A few things we take note of that have made headlines since the beginning of July. We also tip our hat to a few of those who have always helped the show be it's best.

You can listen to the podcast here: https://bit.ly/3kGZ962

Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) broadcasts from the WBCA/NABC Studio. All guests are featured on the BlueFrame Technology Hoopsville Hotline. The offseason plan is to do a podcast each month. The shows will be audio-only leading up to the start of the 2020-21 when we will restart the video shows.

If you have questions, ideas, or want to interact with the show, feel free to send them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options available.

If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


 
   
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3sports.com
Hoopsville Season Archive: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville
YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on August 12, 2020, 09:25:35 AM
I will leave this here, take form it what you want:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

Unless I am missing something this is eye opening.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 12, 2020, 12:03:42 PM
My dad was taking that stuff for a non covid illness earlier this year. His doctor got him on and off as quickly as possible saying, "you don't want to take a drop of this stuff you don't absolutely have to."

You'd need to show me some awfully definitive scientific information to agree to that course of treatment. Not the kind of thing I'd take on a hunch.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on August 12, 2020, 12:25:54 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on August 12, 2020, 09:25:35 AM
I will leave this here, take form it what you want:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

Unless I am missing something this is eye opening.

Notice they did not include Brazil among the early users of HCQ? They cherry-picked the data for countries very effectively. Brazil handed it out like candy and the country is almost as much a hot mess as we are. Other countries that didn't use HCQ faired well also with contact tracing, isolation, and testing, like South Korea and New Zealand. Articles like this, and some that have come out demonizing HCQ, have very efficiently ONLY used data that helps their cause. It has a great WOW factor for politics, it's absolute garbage for science.

There is no conclusive data on HCQ, no matter how either side wants desperately to point it out for political purposes. There are some half formed studies that show it works and other half-formed studies that show it either doesn't work or is harmful in bad doses. But it's all half-formed and unproven. That's the problem with politics intruding on science as badly as it has with this disease. We demand fast answers, and science isn't geared for fast.

The most interesting test of this will be Russia's relatively untested and completely unproven "vaccine." Provided we get accurate data, which is probably about a 0% chance...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 12, 2020, 01:39:28 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on August 12, 2020, 09:25:35 AM
I will leave this here, take form it what you want:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

Unless I am missing something this is eye opening.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/03/hydroxychloroquine-not-effective-brett-giroir/5570944002/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on August 12, 2020, 01:54:52 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on August 12, 2020, 01:39:28 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on August 12, 2020, 09:25:35 AM
I will leave this here, take form it what you want:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

Unless I am missing something this is eye opening.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/03/hydroxychloroquine-not-effective-brett-giroir/5570944002/
thanks for the post. JK is correct about Cherry Picking. However the study in the Lancet that was published at all is eye opening. The Peer review process could have been better, and caught this before being published. And not just because it supports one side or another.

Edit for clarity.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 17, 2020, 10:24:08 PM
And in the news today, [Gov Tim Walz (D-MN)] MN Governor Quietly Reverses Course on Hydroxychloroquine

This past week Minnesota became the second state to reject regulations that effectively ban the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine for use by COVID-19 patients.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mn-governor-quietly-reverses-course-on-hydroxychloroquine/ar-BB1824Me
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 17, 2020, 10:41:02 PM
Quote from: jknezek on August 12, 2020, 12:25:54 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on August 12, 2020, 09:25:35 AM
I will leave this here, take form it what you want:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

Unless I am missing something this is eye opening.

Notice they did not include Brazil among the early users of HCQ? They cherry-picked the data for countries very effectively. Brazil handed it out like candy and the country is almost as much a hot mess as we are. Other countries that didn't use HCQ faired well also with contact tracing, isolation, and testing, like South Korea and New Zealand. Articles like this, and some that have come out demonizing HCQ, have very efficiently ONLY used data that helps their cause. It has a great WOW factor for politics, it's absolute garbage for science.

There is no conclusive data on HCQ, no matter how either side wants desperately to point it out for political purposes. There are some half formed studies that show it works and other half-formed studies that show it either doesn't work or is harmful in bad doses. But it's all half-formed and unproven. That's the problem with politics intruding on science as badly as it has with this disease. We demand fast answers, and science isn't geared for fast.

The most interesting test of this will be Russia's relatively untested and completely unproven "vaccine." Provided we get accurate data, which is probably about a 0% chance...

South Korea did use HCQ as one of the drugs as well as other public health matters such as contract tracing and dedicated (quarantine) facilities as reported by UPI on Mar 12, 2020.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2020/03/12/South-Korea-experts-recommend-anti-HIV-anti-malaria-drugs-for-COVID-19/6961584012321/

This was before remdesivir was available.

The web site "C19 study" gives updates on epidemiologic data and a current tally of the world's literature.

https://c19study.com/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 17, 2020, 10:55:46 PM
Oleandrin is the latest drug being touted.   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on August 18, 2020, 09:06:42 PM
Since it mentions NYU and Baruch, for your contemplation.

NYC IS DEAD FOREVER... HERE'S WHY

https://jamesaltucher.com/blog/nyc-is-dead-forever-heres-why
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 19, 2020, 01:56:09 PM
That's a sobering read, Ralph.

A lot of it is applicable to Chicago as well. And Chicago in 2020 also has its own problems that are unique to the city. I know Chicago lifers who have left here in recent months who have said that they're never coming back, and other lifers who are contemplating it ... and I'm not talking about a move to the Chicagoland suburbs, either. These are the kind of people who would never live in a suburb. They're moving to lower-profile cities outside of Illinois.

This is an era of crisis for all of America's major cities -- and the pandemic is only part of the reason why. Something as seemingly innocuous as an increase in available phone bandwidth is also, as Altucher points out, playing a major role. And there are other issues related to the crisis that have more to do with quality-of-life and/or viability-of-business issues.

American life is undergoing a sea change. In some ways, it's because of the pandemic, and in other ways the pandemic is only accelerating change. One thing's for sure: American colleges and universities are like deer in the headlights as this change comes bearing down on them with no chance of putting on the brakes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 19, 2020, 02:15:00 PM
This is a good article worth the read.

But it is what is called a first world problem.  A rich guy complaining he will have to move to a second tier city like Dallas.  He can run his hedge fund from anywhere.  Many are in Whitefish, Montana.  He just won't be able to go to the theater or eat fancy food.  Where is my "care" emoji ?

He forgot that Walmart was a big factor in the demise of small town life and businesses.  That was just the start.

I'm sure that NYU and Baruch and CCNY will adjust.  In the mean time many people moving out of NYC will end up in small towns with colleges like Sherman, Belton, Middlebury, and Meadville. It can only be a positive for them.   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 19, 2020, 02:43:39 PM
While you're hunting for your "care" emoji, I'll point out that not everybody who is contemplating a move from a major city is a rich guy. For example, a lot of people who run small storefront businesses here in Chicago have boarded them up and left, either because nobody's leaving their houses and apartments much anymore to buy things or because property is now insecure due to rioting and looting that has broken down law and order, or both. And people who worked for those small storefront businesses, as well as for any number of other businesses here and who likewise don't qualify as "rich guys," are being pushed out as well.

The nice thing about a "care" emoji is that you can't use it up. You can use it both for the people in small towns who got put out of business by Wal-Mart, or who will get put out of business if the local small liberal arts college goes belly-up, and for the former mom-and-pop-store owners in the big cities as well.

Compassion is a commodity that is not subject to scarcity.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on August 19, 2020, 03:30:29 PM
Was reading a story about techies abandoning SF now that they can work remotely and live elsewhere for much less.  Having worked for companies that had different payscales for high-cost locations I do wonder how much longer it will be before the Googles, the Facebooks, and the Microsofts take action to reduce the salaries of those who no longer are required or opt to live in such high-cost areas.

According to a recent article in Business Insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/houses-for-sale-san-francisco-inventory-skyrocketing-other-cities-zillow-2020-8), housing inventory in San Francisco is up 96% since February, unlike Boston, LA, Miami, Seattle, or Washington DC where inventory is flat or down in the same period.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on August 21, 2020, 10:50:36 AM
New York Tech, a D2 school on Long Island, shuts down its entire athletic department for at least 2 years. I'm thinking longer than that.

https://nyitbears.com/news/2020/8/20/general-new-york-tech-to-suspend-its-ncaa-programs.aspx

Are small college presidents shifting their reasoning away from "athletics drives enrollment"? Real bad news for D3 if so.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 25, 2020, 11:11:21 AM
I wouldn't draw too many inferences from the example of New York Tech, vis-a-vis D3. First of all, D2 as a whole is a very different animal than D3. Second, New York Tech is, as the name implies, a STEM school, which likewise makes it atypical for a small school in terms of student profile, academic programming, and admissions philosophy. And, third, intercollegiate athletics at New York Tech is still very much a niche activity; the press release says that "currently, close to 250 student-athletes are enrolled at New York Tech." That means that about 1 in 15 NYIT students is a student-athlete ... which, again, is a stark contrast to the percentage of students at most D3 colleges and universities that play sports.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 28, 2020, 08:56:23 PM
Quote from: jknezek on August 12, 2020, 12:25:54 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on August 12, 2020, 09:25:35 AM
I will leave this here, take form it what you want:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

Unless I am missing something this is eye opening.

Notice they did not include Brazil among the early users of HCQ? They cherry-picked the data for countries very effectively. Brazil handed it out like candy and the country is almost as much a hot mess as we are. Other countries that didn't use HCQ faired well also with contact tracing, isolation, and testing, like South Korea and New Zealand. Articles like this, and some that have come out demonizing HCQ, have very efficiently ONLY used data that helps their cause. It has a great WOW factor for politics, it's absolute garbage for science.

There is no conclusive data on HCQ, no matter how either side wants desperately to point it out for political purposes. There are some half formed studies that show it works and other half-formed studies that show it either doesn't work or is harmful in bad doses. But it's all half-formed and unproven. That's the problem with politics intruding on science as badly as it has with this disease. We demand fast answers, and science isn't geared for fast.

The most interesting test of this will be Russia's relatively untested and completely unproven "vaccine." Provided we get accurate data, which is probably about a 0% chance...

That's quite the audacious skill.  Cherry picking while accusing those you disagree with of cherry picking.  Chew on this and then ignore it.

(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiDsojnY.png&f=1&nofb=1)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 29, 2020, 12:05:26 PM

I really don't care about this fight at all, but I do care about logic. Assuming that graph displays correct info, it's assuming hcq is the only factor in the COVID death rate. If it isn't the only factor, a graph like this is basically worthless.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: OzJohnnie on August 30, 2020, 06:06:45 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 29, 2020, 12:05:26 PM

I really don't care about this fight at all, but I do care about logic. Assuming that graph displays correct info, it's assuming hcq is the only factor in the COVID death rate. If it isn't the only factor, a graph like this is basically worthless.

An indictment of every claim ever.  I suspect with 99.999% certainty that your application of this insight is limited.  See if you can figure out why logically that must be true.  If you can't then your enthusiasm scientific empiricism is basically worthless.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 30, 2020, 06:29:19 PM

Correlation vs causation is like first week intro to Sociology stuff.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on August 31, 2020, 05:47:06 PM

https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/08/25/demographers-put-covid-19-death-toll-into-perspective/

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on September 06, 2020, 12:36:04 AM
Three part analysis of information originally published in the New York Times.

https://www.redstate.com/michael_thau/2020/09/03/ny-times-up-to-90-testing-positive-for-c19-virus-not-infectious-but-problem-actually-much-worse/

The Nobel-Prize-Winning inventor of PCR testing, Kary Mullis, opposed the use of PCR testing for viruses.

From Part 2 of the articles...

Quote"PCR" stands for polymerase chain reaction, the biochemical process developed by a researcher named Kary Mullis in 1983 that the test uses.

Though it was important enough to earn Mullis a Nobel Prize, most are unaware that PCR wasn't designed to test for viruses at all.

Mullis invented it to synthesize genetic material for research purposes and, in fact, was strongly opposed to the way it wound up being used to test for the HIV virus.

Mullis's process takes segments of DNA through a "cycle" that doubles the amount. That might not seem like a big deal, but it starts to add up pretty quickly.

If, for example, you ran a single segment of DNA through just 40 PCR cycles, you'd end up with 1 x 240 segments, which is over a trillion new copies.

This is a horrible scam being perpetrated on the American people.   No live virus has been found in any amplifications above 24 PCR cycles.  Why has the CDC not adhered to this standard?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on September 06, 2020, 02:25:42 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on September 06, 2020, 12:44:15 AM
First they came for the Indians. Next the Cancel Culture is coming for the Colonels...

https://whdh.com/news/curry-college-plans-to-replace-colonel-mascot-with-logo/

This looks like a Commonwealth Coast Conference story -- not sure it rises to the level of Future of Division III.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on December 30, 2020, 04:28:53 PM
Ohio State study: 30% of student athletes have heart damage linked to COVID-19

https://www.foxla.com/news/ohio-state-study-30-of-student-athletes-have-heart-damage-linked-to-covid-19?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3Du9jisDuFvPKRMmPjPPyFtEEk7CYeza-J2fqW-yli5YiEzcDQt1pxvzc
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 02, 2021, 09:15:21 PM
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=nxkc8/h0bd39rk57cvhc5h.jpg)

He has been the Vice President for Division IIII since the position was created in 1996. And there are many who wish he remained a bit longer. However, he is now the former VP for #NCAAD3.

On this especially edition of #Hoopsville, Dave McHugh sits down with Dan Dutcher once again to look back at his career at the NCAA and especially DIII, the NCAA Convention, and much more. It is a bit of a "State of DIII" as Dutcher once again tries to give everyone an inside idea of how things work and why certain decisions are made. But the historic perspective is also so helpful when looking at such interesting times now.

Dutcher, who took early retirement and was one of 60 some-odd individuals to leave the NCAA headquarters recently, talks about his 35-plus years at the NCAA and numerous years guiding Division III. He also talks about what he will do with his time now and the emotions of walking out the NCAA doors for a final time.

You can listen to the podcast here: https://bit.ly/3tjaXzz or https://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2020-21/dutcher_interview

Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops .com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. All guests appear on the @BlueFrameTech Hoopsville Hotline.

If you have questions, ideas, or want to interact with the show, feel free to send them to hoopsville@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options available.

If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville


 
   
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/zp2t977dsfqmq2ng.jpg) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/7jdya7ckqexrfad3.jpg) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gzu/0qxioniqi7kizek9.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/qlios5f6juz7tij9.jpg) (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-hoopsville-30984615/)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkf/otimp41swikeb9uf.jpg) (https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id332395)(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=300/mh=150/cr=n/d=40gkg/vpaw3ejt1tsc9r48.jpg) (https://radiopublic.com/hoopsville-6nkZN8)

We also have the podcast now on Tune-In (https://tunein.com/podcasts/Sports--Recreation-Podcasts/Hoopsville-p1153539/) and others coming. We will update them once we have better abilities to do so.

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3sports.com
Hoopsville Season Archive: www.team1sports.com/Hoopsville
YouTube: www.youtube.com/d3hoopsville
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 18, 2021, 09:06:45 AM
Mills College (CA), a small, primarily women's college, is the latest D3 school to call it quits.  They only sponsored a handful of sports (to be expected with an undergraduate enrollment in the hundreds).

https://www.mills.edu/announcement/index.php

QuoteSince 1852, Mills College has brought transformative learning opportunities to many by breaking barriers, forging connections, and changing lives. Today, because of the economic burdens of the COVID-19 pandemic, structural changes across higher education, and Mills' declining enrollment and budget deficits, Mills must begin to shift away from being a degree-granting college and toward becoming a Mills Institute that can sustain Mills' mission. The Mills College Board of Trustees, after careful consideration, has decided that after fall 2021, Mills will no longer enroll new first-year undergraduate students. We will focus our resources on building degree pathways for our continuing students, and supporting the new first-year undergraduate, transfer, and graduate students who will join us this fall. Mills will most likely confer its final degrees in 2023, pending further consideration and action by the Board of Trustees.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NJRoyal137 on April 09, 2021, 08:10:42 AM
D1 Hartford is very likely to downgrade to DIII:

https://www.wtnh.com/news/news-8-exclusive/exclusive-could-the-university-of-hartford-downgrade-its-athletic-program/

Some highlights:

Only 22 schools make money off athletics

They are losing $13 million annually

This is very likely going to start a major shift of schools downgrading. I do wonder if the NCAA allows certain programs to maintain two D1 programs (likely m+w bb) and downgrade other programs in order to save money, otherwise there might not be too many D1 conferences left, especially when the Power 5 break off and form their own thing.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on April 09, 2021, 09:16:31 AM
Quote from: NJRoyal137 on April 09, 2021, 08:10:42 AM
D1 Hartford is very likely to downgrade to DIII:

https://www.wtnh.com/news/news-8-exclusive/exclusive-could-the-university-of-hartford-downgrade-its-athletic-program/

Some highlights:

Only 22 schools make money off athletics

They are losing $13 million annually

This is very likely going to start a major shift of schools downgrading. I do wonder if the NCAA allows certain programs to maintain two D1 programs (likely m+w bb) and downgrade other programs in order to save money, otherwise there might not be too many D1 conferences left, especially when the Power 5 break off and form their own thing.

Maybe Hartford moves. "Very likely" is doing a lot of work in each sentence and represents an overstatement.

Also the "D1 in hoops, D3 in everything else" violates the hell out of the Dayton Rule and will be a complete non-starter for the D3 membership.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NJRoyal137 on April 09, 2021, 10:57:28 AM
I dunno - between NIL, COVID, the G-League attracting high school players, Knight Commission, virtual education - among other issues facing the NCAA - we could see schools save try to considerable money by trimming athletics - either football or reclassifying completely.

We're in unprecedented times, the Dayton rule was not created with these challenges in mind. Nothing is written in stone, especially when money and power are at stake. I'm just saying you never know. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on April 09, 2021, 11:03:40 AM
Quote from: NJRoyal137 on April 09, 2021, 10:57:28 AM
I dunno - between NIL, COVID, the G-League attracting high school players, Knight Commission, virtual education - among other issues facing the NCAA - we could see schools save try to considerable money by trimming athletics - either football or reclassifying completely.

We're in unprecedented times, the Dayton rule was not created with these challenges in mind. Nothing is written in stone, especially when money and power are at stake. I'm just saying you never know.

I don't think the Dayton rule is going anywhere. The current D3 membership seems pretty happy with the all in concept and they aren't likely to bend that to attract a bunch of new schools that want to drop out of D1 for most sports. There is no upside. And D3 is already the largest, by number of institutions, division in the NCAA.

Schools that want a half in, half out option are better off looking to create non-scholarship leagues inside D1. That way you have your basketball programs in a scholarship conference (or football plus whatever you need to balance it out for Title IX purposes), and your other sports in non-scholarship conferences. Get enough like minded schools within a close distance and it serves the same purpose, except having almost no shot at winning a DI national title.

if you want to go D3, you are going to need to be D3 across the board.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 09, 2021, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: jknezek on April 09, 2021, 11:03:40 AM
Quote from: NJRoyal137 on April 09, 2021, 10:57:28 AM
I dunno - between NIL, COVID, the G-League attracting high school players, Knight Commission, virtual education - among other issues facing the NCAA - we could see schools save try to considerable money by trimming athletics - either football or reclassifying completely.

We're in unprecedented times, the Dayton rule was not created with these challenges in mind. Nothing is written in stone, especially when money and power are at stake. I'm just saying you never know.

I don't think the Dayton rule is going anywhere. The current D3 membership seems pretty happy with the all in concept and they aren't likely to bend that to attract a bunch of new schools that want to drop out of D1 for most sports. There is no upside. And D3 is already the largest, by number of institutions, division in the NCAA.

Schools that want a half in, half out option are better off looking to create non-scholarship leagues inside D1. That way you have your basketball programs in a scholarship conference (or football plus whatever you need to balance it out for Title IX purposes), and your other sports in non-scholarship conferences. Get enough like minded schools within a close distance and it serves the same purpose, except having almost no shot at winning a DI national title.

if you want to go D3, you are going to need to be D3 across the board.

This. And it's not as though the idea of forming non-scholarship leagues inside D1 is some novel concept. Leagues like that already exist. For the Hartfords of the world, it's simply a matter of either getting into one or helping to start a new one with whatever other like-minded refugees from big-time D1 athletics they can find.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NJRoyal137 on April 09, 2021, 04:01:57 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 09, 2021, 11:21:37 AM
Quote from: jknezek on April 09, 2021, 11:03:40 AM
Quote from: NJRoyal137 on April 09, 2021, 10:57:28 AM
I dunno - between NIL, COVID, the G-League attracting high school players, Knight Commission, virtual education - among other issues facing the NCAA - we could see schools save try to considerable money by trimming athletics - either football or reclassifying completely.

We're in unprecedented times, the Dayton rule was not created with these challenges in mind. Nothing is written in stone, especially when money and power are at stake. I'm just saying you never know.

I don't think the Dayton rule is going anywhere. The current D3 membership seems pretty happy with the all in concept and they aren't likely to bend that to attract a bunch of new schools that want to drop out of D1 for most sports. There is no upside. And D3 is already the largest, by number of institutions, division in the NCAA.

Schools that want a half in, half out option are better off looking to create non-scholarship leagues inside D1. That way you have your basketball programs in a scholarship conference (or football plus whatever you need to balance it out for Title IX purposes), and your other sports in non-scholarship conferences. Get enough like minded schools within a close distance and it serves the same purpose, except having almost no shot at winning a DI national title.

if you want to go D3, you are going to need to be D3 across the board.

This. And it's not as though the idea of forming non-scholarship leagues inside D1 is some novel concept. Leagues like that already exist. For the Hartfords of the world, it's simply a matter of either getting into one or helping to start a new one with whatever other like-minded refugees from big-time D1 athletics they can find.

All fair points. There is going to be some change no matter what, will be fascinating to watch. I just hope we see schools invest more in the marketing and content around their D3 programs in the future.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on April 09, 2021, 04:13:37 PM
Quote from: NJRoyal137 on April 09, 2021, 04:01:57 PM

All fair points. There is going to be some change no matter what, will be fascinating to watch. I just hope we see schools invest more in the marketing and content around their D3 programs in the future.

So it's interesting.  I've been following D3 for basically 25 years now and there *has* been a definite increase in marketing and certainly online presence among the schools I follow.   I've also had the pleasure of watching a couple of schools make the D1 -> D3 transition (Birmingham Southern and Centenary(LA)) and those schools have retained a more D1-like presence from a marketing perspective (not huge but the difference is noticeable vs. at least some D3 schools).   

The schools that are having athletic success are realizing that they can have more success recruiting with a more professional presence, and are stepping up their online and social media efforts where spending a relatively few dollars can have a significant return and give them a presence they can't get from media who prefer covering pro and scholarship sports. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 09, 2021, 04:27:10 PM
Those are the two that have done it -- there have been others that have explored it, too, and have not gone through. Tulane talked about it publicly and others have explored it but it has not leaked out, I don't think (Lafayette and Winthrop are names which have crossed my proverbial desk).

It'll be interesting. Hartford is a fair amount bigger than Centenary and B-SC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NJRoyal137 on April 09, 2021, 04:47:13 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on April 09, 2021, 04:13:37 PM
Quote from: NJRoyal137 on April 09, 2021, 04:01:57 PM

All fair points. There is going to be some change no matter what, will be fascinating to watch. I just hope we see schools invest more in the marketing and content around their D3 programs in the future.

So it's interesting.  I've been following D3 for basically 25 years now and there *has* been a definite increase in marketing and certainly online presence among the schools I follow.   I've also had the pleasure of watching a couple of schools make the D1 -> D3 transition (Birmingham Southern and Centenary(LA)) and those schools have retained a more D1-like presence from a marketing perspective (not huge but the difference is noticeable vs. at least some D3 schools).   

The schools that are having athletic success are realizing that they can have more success recruiting with a more professional presence, and are stepping up their online and social media efforts where spending a relatively few dollars can have a significant return and give them a presence they can't get from media who prefer covering pro and scholarship sports.

I need to look around more, but Tufts LAX, Ithaca, ETBU, Amherst, UC Santa Cruz has a great presence. I want to see A LOT more of that
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on April 09, 2021, 04:55:51 PM
I forget what year it was but remember Univ. of New Orleans announced they were going D3 and starting football and there was actually a game against them on our schedule for a short time that spring before some of their big donors shut the idea down.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on April 09, 2021, 05:45:24 PM
Quote from: Hawks88 on April 09, 2021, 04:55:51 PM
I forget what year it was but remember Univ. of New Orleans announced they were going D3 and starting football and there was actually a game against them on our schedule for a short time that spring before some of their big donors shut the idea down.

late '00s probably, it was the effects of Katrina that nearly wiped them out of D1. They were going D3, then D2 (had been accepted to the Gulf South Conference), then picked up the Southland Conference invite that allowed them to remain in Division I.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on April 10, 2021, 09:11:58 AM
In 2004 there was an article in the Houston Chronicle recommending Rice take the D3 (https://web.archive.org/web/20070313013428/http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2004_3761186) route but I don't know if the school ever seriously considered the possibility.   According to this 2017 Chronicle article (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/rice/article/Where-football-fits-at-Rice-between-expectations-12434389.php), it was a number of possible alternatives put on the table, none of which were apparently pursued.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 11, 2021, 09:30:41 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on April 10, 2021, 09:11:58 AM
In 2004 there was an article in the Houston Chronicle recommending Rice take the D3 (https://web.archive.org/web/20070313013428/http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2004_3761186) route but I don't know if the school ever seriously considered the possibility.   According to this 2017 Chronicle article (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/rice/article/Where-football-fits-at-Rice-between-expectations-12434389.php), it was a number of possible alternatives put on the table, none of which were apparently pursued.

It would've been interesting to see what would've happened if Rice had considered the change after the massive shakeup a little over a decade ago that made the SCAC a Texas-centric conference and the newly-minted SAA a more southeastern-oriented conference centered around former SCAC members. There are certainly more options for a wealthy and high-academic-cachet university such as Rice to find a D3 league "nearby" (in Texas, the word "nearby" ought to always be put in quotes ;)) containing schools that have a somewhat similar academic profile than there were before.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 11, 2021, 09:51:04 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on April 09, 2021, 04:27:10 PM
Those are the two that have done it -- there have been others that have explored it, too, and have not gone through. Tulane talked about it publicly and others have explored it but it has not leaked out, I don't think (Lafayette and Winthrop are names which have crossed my proverbial desk).

We gave the possibility of Tulane converting to D3 a lot of play here on d3boards.com back when it was a live topic, although that was fueled to some degree by the fact that David Collinge, a Tulane Law School alumnus, was heavily involved on d3boards.com back then.

Winthrop wouldn't have been much of a story, because it's not a school that's ever drawn a lot of attention, and the USA South has schools that are fairly close to Winthrop's profile. But Lafayette? That's a high-profile institution (the northeastern-centric nature of American higher education is partly responsible for that) that is not only essentially a NESCAC school that is slightly geographically misplaced, it's also a school that enjoys being half of the most heavily-played head-to-head series in all of college football (Lafayette vs. Lehigh, better known as "The Rivalry"). If Lafayette had chucked The Rivalry and gone D3 -- where it would've been a highly-prized addition to any of several conferences, although I'm guessing that the Landmark Conference would've been the frontrunner -- it would've been major news.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on April 11, 2021, 10:37:48 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 11, 2021, 09:30:41 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on April 10, 2021, 09:11:58 AM
In 2004 there was an article in the Houston Chronicle recommending Rice take the D3 (https://web.archive.org/web/20070313013428/http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2004_3761186) route but I don't know if the school ever seriously considered the possibility.   According to this 2017 Chronicle article (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/rice/article/Where-football-fits-at-Rice-between-expectations-12434389.php), it was a number of possible alternatives put on the table, none of which were apparently pursued.

It would've been interesting to see what would've happened if Rice had considered the change after the massive shakeup a little over a decade ago that made the SCAC a Texas-centric conference and the newly-minted SAA a more southeastern-oriented conference centered around former SCAC members. There are certainly more options for a wealthy and high-academic-cachet university such as Rice to find a D3 league "nearby" (in Texas, the word "nearby" ought to always be put in quotes ;)) containing schools that have a somewhat similar academic profile than there were before.

Nearby isn't even necessary for them. Rice and Tulane are UAA type schools I don't know if Rice and/or Tulane went D3 they would want to (Johns Hopkins doesn't want to) or the UAA would even have wanted them but they would fit right in.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on April 11, 2021, 11:15:43 AM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on April 11, 2021, 10:37:48 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 11, 2021, 09:30:41 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on April 10, 2021, 09:11:58 AM
In 2004 there was an article in the Houston Chronicle recommending Rice take the D3 (https://web.archive.org/web/20070313013428/http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2004_3761186) route but I don't know if the school ever seriously considered the possibility.   According to this 2017 Chronicle article (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/rice/article/Where-football-fits-at-Rice-between-expectations-12434389.php), it was a number of possible alternatives put on the table, none of which were apparently pursued.

It would've been interesting to see what would've happened if Rice had considered the change after the massive shakeup a little over a decade ago that made the SCAC a Texas-centric conference and the newly-minted SAA a more southeastern-oriented conference centered around former SCAC members. There are certainly more options for a wealthy and high-academic-cachet university such as Rice to find a D3 league "nearby" (in Texas, the word "nearby" ought to always be put in quotes ;)) containing schools that have a somewhat similar academic profile than there were before.

Nearby isn't even necessary for them. Rice and Tulane are UAA type schools I don't know if Rice and/or Tulane went D3 they would want to (Johns Hopkins doesn't want to) or the UAA would even have wanted them but they would fit right in.

Wasn't the JHU issue with the UAA the football situation?  They wanted one conference for all their sports?  I'm sure travel was part of that, but the UAA doesn't really demand a ton of travel - it's just expensive, which should be no problem for JHU.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 11, 2021, 12:32:22 PM
Assuming they wanted to keep football, I think Lafayette fit with the Centennial Conference better. The former Centennial commissioner mentioned publicly this past week that they had heard from Lafayette.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on April 11, 2021, 04:39:08 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on April 11, 2021, 10:37:48 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on April 11, 2021, 09:30:41 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on April 10, 2021, 09:11:58 AM
In 2004 there was an article in the Houston Chronicle recommending Rice take the D3 (https://web.archive.org/web/20070313013428/http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2004_3761186) route but I don't know if the school ever seriously considered the possibility.   According to this 2017 Chronicle article (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/rice/article/Where-football-fits-at-Rice-between-expectations-12434389.php), it was a number of possible alternatives put on the table, none of which were apparently pursued.

It would've been interesting to see what would've happened if Rice had considered the change after the massive shakeup a little over a decade ago that made the SCAC a Texas-centric conference and the newly-minted SAA a more southeastern-oriented conference centered around former SCAC members. There are certainly more options for a wealthy and high-academic-cachet university such as Rice to find a D3 league "nearby" (in Texas, the word "nearby" ought to always be put in quotes ;)) containing schools that have a somewhat similar academic profile than there were before.

Nearby isn't even necessary for them. Rice and Tulane are UAA type schools I don't know if Rice and/or Tulane went D3 they would want to (Johns Hopkins doesn't want to) or the UAA would even have wanted them but they would fit right in.

And if not the UAA, either the SAA or NESCAC.  The SCAC's academic profile's not as high as it was before the split; there are certainly some SCAC schools (not all, but a decent number) that would not be welcomed in the SAA even if they were located in the South.  That as much as the travel was (IMO) the reason for the split in the first place given that there had been serious discussion of moving to a east/west model which would have greatly cut down the travel.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NJRoyal137 on May 07, 2021, 02:05:39 PM
Welcome to D3, Hartford (in 5 years)

https://www.fox61.com/article/sports/ncaa/university-of-hartford-to-transition-to-division-iii/520-e654f541-872a-416f-82f2-733b5c18f218

I do wonder what this means for:

1. America East - who fills that void? Any D2 schools coming up?

2. Other D3 schools - Hartford has some nice facilities, that can actually really benefit them in recruiting at that level

3. Will more schools follow suit?

4. If enough smaller schools go down, will the NCAA amend some rules to keep basketball + football at D1?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on May 07, 2021, 03:00:47 PM
Quote from: NJRoyal137 on May 07, 2021, 02:05:39 PM
Welcome to D3, Hartford (in 5 years)

https://www.fox61.com/article/sports/ncaa/university-of-hartford-to-transition-to-division-iii/520-e654f541-872a-416f-82f2-733b5c18f218

I do wonder what this means for:

1. America East - who fills that void? Any D2 schools coming up?

2. Other D3 schools - Hartford has some nice facilities, that can actually really benefit them in recruiting at that level

3. Will more schools follow suit?

4. If enough smaller schools go down, will the NCAA amend some rules to keep basketball + football at D1?

1.  no idea
2.  agreed to a certain extent, though the other two schools that have gone D1 -> D3, Birmingham-Southern and Centenary (LA), haven't seen a huge impact from their D1-level facilities.  Those schools are also much smaller than Hartford, a relatively large private school for D3 (~5k undergrads) with a middling endowment for a school of that size, $176m as of 2020 (possibly a contributing factor for the move).  Enrollment has also been on a slow decline, ~100/year, for the last five years, while the number of on-campus residents has declined almost twice as fast (per https://www.hartford.edu/about/offices-divisions/institutional-effectiveness/fact-book/enrollment.aspx).
3.  yes
4.  no.  the D3 membership is pretty clear that they don't want more D1 programs grandfathered in. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 07, 2021, 03:06:41 PM

Hartford won't be eligible for postseason until 2025, but they'll be playing d3 games in 2022-23.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jaller on May 08, 2021, 02:07:28 PM
Any insight on where Hartford fits Conference wise?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on May 08, 2021, 02:10:37 PM
Quote from: jaller on May 08, 2021, 02:07:28 PM
Any insight on where Hartford fits Conference wise?

The d3hoops.com story (https://d3hoops.com/notables/2021/05/hartford-heading-toward-d3) mentions a couple of conference possibilities.   It's hard to imagine them making this move without having had some sort of preliminary discussions with conferences to ensure they had a home when the time comes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 08, 2021, 04:30:14 PM

This happened pretty quick. The consultant's proposal showed comps for the NEWMAC, the CCC, and the LEC. LEC is all public schools, the NEWMAC has no real incentive to take a new member (even if this is Hartford's first choice), and the CCC is well placed with 10 members and probably not likely to add a school with 6000 students.  I think GNAC is most likely, but the landscape will almost certainly look different in 2-3 years when they really need a landing spot.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jaller on May 08, 2021, 06:08:48 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 08, 2021, 04:30:14 PM

This happened pretty quick. The consultant's proposal showed comps for the NEWMAC, the CCC, and the LEC. LEC is all public schools, the NEWMAC has no real incentive to take a new member (even if this is Hartford's first choice), and the CCC is well placed with 10 members and probably not likely to add a school with 6000 students.  I think GNAC is most likely, but the landscape will almost certainly look different in 2-3 years when they really need a landing spot.

GNAC just keeps getting bigger and bigger. I imagine NEC and Mitchell will wind up there as well. Not sure what my former school is going to do.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on May 09, 2021, 06:15:17 PM
Quote from: jaller on May 08, 2021, 06:08:48 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 08, 2021, 04:30:14 PM

This happened pretty quick. The consultant's proposal showed comps for the NEWMAC, the CCC, and the LEC. LEC is all public schools, the NEWMAC has no real incentive to take a new member (even if this is Hartford's first choice), and the CCC is well placed with 10 members and probably not likely to add a school with 6000 students.  I think GNAC is most likely, but the landscape will almost certainly look different in 2-3 years when they really need a landing spot.

GNAC just keeps getting bigger and bigger. I imagine NEC and Mitchell will wind up there as well. Not sure what my former school is going to do.
...because of how many schools go under in the next 5 years?

IMHO, we are headed for some pretty drastic economic consequences in the next 5 years.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 09, 2021, 06:50:56 PM

It's schools closing, for sure, but also conference movement.  The gnac is getting too big and the necc is getting too small and no one wants the travel involved in the nac. It's going to be a bit of a mess in NE for a while.  These new regional alignments might get re-realigned pretty quick.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on May 09, 2021, 07:56:47 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on May 09, 2021, 06:15:17 PM
Quote from: jaller on May 08, 2021, 06:08:48 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 08, 2021, 04:30:14 PM

This happened pretty quick. The consultant's proposal showed comps for the NEWMAC, the CCC, and the LEC. LEC is all public schools, the NEWMAC has no real incentive to take a new member (even if this is Hartford's first choice), and the CCC is well placed with 10 members and probably not likely to add a school with 6000 students.  I think GNAC is most likely, but the landscape will almost certainly look different in 2-3 years when they really need a landing spot.

GNAC just keeps getting bigger and bigger. I imagine NEC and Mitchell will wind up there as well. Not sure what my former school is going to do.
...because of how many schools go under in the next 5 years?

IMHO, we are headed for some pretty drastic economic consequences in the next 5 years.
There was already going to be a downturn in college age demographics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 10, 2021, 08:30:28 AM
Redlands is the latest to cut costs by reducing staffing as a result of declining attendance (nearly a 20% loss since 2019).   34 positions (of which 18 were already vacant) will be eliminated.   

https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/2021/06/04/enrollment-declines-at-university-of-redlands-prompt-layoffs-reorganization/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on June 10, 2021, 05:16:51 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 10, 2021, 08:30:28 AM
Redlands is the latest to cut costs by reducing staffing as a result of declining attendance (nearly a 20% loss since 2019).   34 positions (of which 18 were already vacant) will be eliminated.   

https://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/2021/06/04/enrollment-declines-at-university-of-redlands-prompt-layoffs-reorganization/
The university's enrollment has been declining since 2015. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated that trend last year, resulting in a $13 million deficit and prompting the need for staff reductions and reorganization. Enrollment for the 2021-22 year will be 3,989, down from 4,033 in 2020-21.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 17, 2021, 08:39:40 AM
Forbes has published its annual article of college financial grades (https://www.forbes.com/sites/schifrin/2021/02/22/college-financial-grades-2021-will-your-alma-mater-survive-covid/), but as the article mentions, it's based on data from 2019 and 2018 so is pre-pandemic.  They call out Guilford for operating in deficit mode even before the pandemic but note that thanks to  donations and pledges raised when the school proposed cuts for COVID that the school "lives on in misery for another few years."  Oglethorpe is called out for making a huge positive turnaround, the best among all schools reviewed.   D2-bound Emory & Henry "suffered the largest decline in the last five years."  The nine factors making up the score are described in the article; less than one in ten schools received an "A" or higher. 

Forbes allows several free articles monthly, you can open an incognito window or try a different browser if you've already reached your limit for this month.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 08, 2021, 03:43:01 PM
The NCAA sent a letter to membership today about the results of the Constitution Committee:

(1) a new NCAA Constitution will be ratified in January, 2022;
(2) each Division will rewrite its rules taking into account the new document and each Division's standards by August 2022.

There is no mention of what happens if the NCAA membership fails to ratify the new constitution, but this isn't the NCAA talking:  https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1446541757525659651/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 14, 2021, 09:14:21 AM
Further details from the NCAA on the timeline of activities related to the new constitution:
The Division III Presidents Council will determine specific legislative deadlines within the Dec. 15 to Jan. 20 time frame during its Oct. 27 meeting.

More details here (https://mc97gsxn49y6wmpf4p2n764zq7z1.pub.sfmc-content.com/iaxczvai5xf?utm_source=D3Playbook&utm_campaign=ca972dcc44-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_10_14_09_50&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f4649c1bfa-ca972dcc44-421811585).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on October 14, 2021, 09:18:33 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 14, 2021, 09:14:21 AM
Further details from the NCAA on the timeline of activities related to the new constitution:
  • Nov. 8: Constitution Committee delivers initial concepts to member schools.
  • Nov. 15: Each division discusses concepts at the Special Convention.
  • Nov. 15 – 20: Initial comment and feedback period by the membership.
  • Nov. 21 – Dec. 5: Constitution Committee reviews feedback and modifies concepts for membership review.
  • Dec. 6 – 11: Second comment and feedback period by the membership.
  • Dec. 15: Constitution Committee provides final recommendations to the Board of Governors.
  • Dec. 15 – Jan. 20: The Board of Governors, divisional bodies and member schools and conferences sponsor amendments to be discussed and voted upon.
  • Jan. 20: Members participate in the 2022 NCAA Convention and vote on a new NCAA constitution.
  • Jan. 20 – Aug. 2022: Each division reviews its rules and adopts changes in time for legislation to be effective Aug. 1 for the new academic year. 
The Division III Presidents Council will determine specific legislative deadlines within the Dec. 15 to Jan. 20 time frame during its Oct. 27 meeting.

More details here (https://mc97gsxn49y6wmpf4p2n764zq7z1.pub.sfmc-content.com/iaxczvai5xf?utm_source=D3Playbook&utm_campaign=ca972dcc44-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_10_14_09_50&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f4649c1bfa-ca972dcc44-421811585).

I guess it won't be long before we see if the P5 takes their ball, and their money, and forces everyone else to find a new way to do things. I'd love to be sour about it, but it seems inevitable to me. When Texas and Oklahoma are jumping conferences for every last dollar they can grub, willing to go from big fish in a small pond to medium fish in an ocean, you know they aren't going to want to share that measly couple million a year for D2 and D3 to have championships for much longer.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 09, 2021, 08:40:47 AM
Washington Post story on new NCAA constitution (https://wapo.st/3mVQAr6) (open to all, one of my gift articles for the month).

Link to draft of proposed constitution (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/governance/ncaa/constitution/NCAAGov_DraftConstitution.pdf) - 18.5 pages, down from 43.

From the WaPo article:

QuoteThe NCAA is setting the stage for a dramatic restructuring of college sports that will give each of its three divisions the power to govern itself.

Approval of a new, streamlined constitution is expected in January with minimal consternation or conflict.

The next phase of the NCAA's transformation figures to be more difficult: A reshaping of Division I that will tackle revenue distribution, how rules are made and enforced, access to the most-high profile and lucrative NCAA events —- such as the men's basketball tournament — and just how big the tent should be at the top of college sports.

"So those are the things that we're really going to have to get to the granular spot, and some of those are going to be very difficult conversations to have," said West Virginia athletic director Shane Lyons, who is the chairman of the Division I Council and a member of the committee that trimmed the bedrock constitution of the 115-year-old organization.

[...]

The proposed constitution also locks in the current revenue distribution percentage to Division II (4.37%) and Division III (3.18%), which should help it garner support the majority of the NCAA"s member schools. The NCAA has 1,100 member schools, 351 that compete in Division I, and some 500,000 athletes overall."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on November 09, 2021, 09:02:28 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 09, 2021, 08:40:47 AM
Washington Post story on new NCAA constitution (https://wapo.st/3mVQAr6) (open to all, one of my gift articles for the month).

Link to draft of proposed constitution (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/governance/ncaa/constitution/NCAAGov_DraftConstitution.pdf) - 18.5 pages, down from 43.

From the WaPo article:

QuoteThe NCAA is setting the stage for a dramatic restructuring of college sports that will give each of its three divisions the power to govern itself.

Approval of a new, streamlined constitution is expected in January with minimal consternation or conflict.

The next phase of the NCAA's transformation figures to be more difficult: A reshaping of Division I that will tackle revenue distribution, how rules are made and enforced, access to the most-high profile and lucrative NCAA events —- such as the men's basketball tournament — and just how big the tent should be at the top of college sports.

"So those are the things that we're really going to have to get to the granular spot, and some of those are going to be very difficult conversations to have," said West Virginia athletic director Shane Lyons, who is the chairman of the Division I Council and a member of the committee that trimmed the bedrock constitution of the 115-year-old organization.

[...]

The proposed constitution also locks in the current revenue distribution percentage to Division II (4.37%) and Division III (3.18%), which should help it garner support the majority of the NCAA"s member schools. The NCAA has 1,100 member schools, 351 that compete in Division I, and some 500,000 athletes overall."

That last part is good news. Of course, if the P5 create their own basketball tournament outside the NCAA, kind of like how the bowl system works, that revenue won't be part of the split.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 15, 2021, 03:56:03 PM
Uh-oh, here we go.  From the ongoing NCAA Constitution session:

https://twitter.com/lainehiggins17/status/1460318565601583110

QuoteOnto the third topic: Finance

This is where the constitution gives D2 4.37% and D3 3.18% of NCAA revenue (the bulk of which is generated by D1), largely a move to help get those members on board for amendments, which require a 2/3 majority to pass

Pretty said that D2 with fewer schools (and sports participants) than D3 gets more money.

https://twitter.com/lainehiggins17/status/1460319467368595461

QuoteThe Sun Belt's Keith Gill asks the NCAA to clarify the percentage distributions to D2 and D3, which were first agreed to at an NCAA convention 25 years ago

Nevarez clarifies that new revenue streams established after 1996 are not subject to those percentage payouts

The effing Sun Belt is worried about D2/D3 pennies.

https://twitter.com/lainehiggins17/status/1460320850796818435

QuoteBased on the voting results from the four straw polls, NCAA members in D1 appear to have the most concerns about the section on finance. That's likely tied to the payouts to D2 and D3 and the lack of language on revenue distributions from NCAA to members from March Madness

Just a sign of times to come, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NJRoyal137 on November 16, 2021, 11:45:34 AM
I know it won't mean this, but would be cool if some of these changes would open the door to make it easier for some D3 schools to elevate 1-2 programs to the Division 1 level. A lot of schools would benefit from additional exposure and a prorated revenue boost if they were allowed to have women's basketball or men's soccer serve as an adjunct member of a D1 conference.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on November 16, 2021, 01:00:02 PM
Quote from: NJRoyal137 on November 16, 2021, 11:45:34 AM
I know it won't mean this, but would be cool if some of these changes would open the door to make it easier for some D3 schools to elevate 1-2 programs to the Division 1 level. A lot of schools would benefit from additional exposure and a prorated revenue boost if they were allowed to have women's basketball or men's soccer serve as an adjunct member of a D1 conference.

D3 very clearly went the other way 25-30 years ago, and about 10 years ago shut down the idea altogether going forward. I believe all of the grandfathered programs in men's soccer and almost all of them in lax have now shifted. JHU Lax, Hobart Lax (though I think they shifted back and forth once, maybe?), and Colorado College women's soccer might be the last of them. There are still a few Ice Hockey schools, mainly in the northeast, and then a bunch of schools in non-D3 sports like Rifle, Gymnastics, Bowling, Fencing and Skiing.

I think most schools found it was a massive money drain. Building D1 facilities, staff, and compliance departments for 1 sport simply wasn't worth what little exposure and money they got in those sports that aren't the big 2 of football and basketball. The ones that hang on have deep pockets and history, like JHU lacrosse, or are involved in small Olympic sport programs mostly.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on November 16, 2021, 05:20:43 PM

CC wsoc is only d1 to balance out the men's hockey team.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2021, 02:04:05 PM
Belhaven moves to the USA South.

https://www.usasouth.net/general/2021-22/releases/20211119qluuy0

Probably collegial and on good terms...
Definitely, travel concerns are noted.

(It is roughly the same distance from Belhaven to McMurry as it is from Belhaven to the Atlantic Ocean (Jacksonville FL).

Now I suspect that Mississippi University for Women (a state school) might be next for the USA South, if there is a mission and vision match with the private schools.

I can also imagine a split in the USA South with the West Division seeking to new conference status and the East Division's 4 football playing schools keeping the AQ and the West Division schools remaining as football affiliates.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on November 22, 2021, 02:58:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2021, 02:04:05 PM
Belhaven moves to the USA South.

https://www.usasouth.net/general/2021-22/releases/20211119qluuy0

Probably collegial and on good terms...
Definitely, travel concerns are noted.

(It is roughly the same distance from Belhaven to McMurry as it is from Belhaven to the Atlantic Ocean (Jacksonville FL).

Now I suspect that Mississippi University for Women (a state school) might be next for the USA South, if there is a mission and vision match with the private schools.

I can also imagine a split in the USA South with the West Division seeking to new conference status and the East Division's 4 football playing schools keeping the AQ and the West Division schools remaining as football affiliates.

Or the 10 football schools form their own conference, now that the six non-football schools can be their own conference?  I suspect this plan might be why the USAC was part of the push to get the number for a conference lowered from seven to six?  MUW could bring the non-football to 7 and there's always Bob Jones, as well.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Hawks88 on November 22, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on November 22, 2021, 02:58:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2021, 02:04:05 PM
Belhaven moves to the USA South.

https://www.usasouth.net/general/2021-22/releases/20211119qluuy0

Probably collegial and on good terms...
Definitely, travel concerns are noted.

(It is roughly the same distance from Belhaven to McMurry as it is from Belhaven to the Atlantic Ocean (Jacksonville FL).

Now I suspect that Mississippi University for Women (a state school) might be next for the USA South, if there is a mission and vision match with the private schools.

I can also imagine a split in the USA South with the West Division seeking to new conference status and the East Division's 4 football playing schools keeping the AQ and the West Division schools remaining as football affiliates.

Or the 10 football schools form their own conference, now that the six non-football schools can be their own conference?  I suspect this plan might be why the USAC was part of the push to get the number for a conference lowered from seven to six?  MUW could bring the non-football to 7 and there's always Bob Jones, as well.
It will still 9 football schools, Averett is leaving for the ODAC. With the Women's schools there are currently 19. Women's basketball currently has 10 in the east division and 9 in the west.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: monsoon on November 22, 2021, 11:00:09 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on November 22, 2021, 02:58:04 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 22, 2021, 02:04:05 PM
Belhaven moves to the USA South.

https://www.usasouth.net/general/2021-22/releases/20211119qluuy0

Probably collegial and on good terms...
Definitely, travel concerns are noted.

(It is roughly the same distance from Belhaven to McMurry as it is from Belhaven to the Atlantic Ocean (Jacksonville FL).

Now I suspect that Mississippi University for Women (a state school) might be next for the USA South, if there is a mission and vision match with the private schools.

I can also imagine a split in the USA South with the West Division seeking to new conference status and the East Division's 4 football playing schools keeping the AQ and the West Division schools remaining as football affiliates.

Or the 10 football schools form their own conference, now that the six non-football schools can be their own conference?  I suspect this plan might be why the USAC was part of the push to get the number for a conference lowered from seven to six?  MUW could bring the non-football to 7 and there's always Bob Jones, as well.

Non-football Asbury is still looking for a conference, too (unless I missed something, which is entirely possible).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on November 22, 2021, 11:46:57 PM
monsoon,
Here is the statement on their site:  "At the conclusion of the 2020-21 academic year, AU will transition from the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), the River States Conference (RSC) and the Appalachian Athletic Conference (AAC)."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 23, 2021, 10:00:34 AM
Quote from: Gray Fox on November 22, 2021, 11:46:57 PM
monsoon,
Here is the statement on their site:  "At the conclusion of the 2020-21 academic year, AU will transition from the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), the River States Conference (RSC) and the Appalachian Athletic Conference (AAC)."

It is interesting that the release you quoted (https://www.asbury.edu/life/news-events/news/2021/03/25/ncaa-division-iii/) doesn't mention anything about seeking a D3 conference affiliation.   They were approved for D3 provisional status starting this year (thus leaving NAIA and the conferences mentioned) with the fourth year waived, are playing a lot of D3 schools in the region, but are participating in NCCAA championships starting this year (since ineligible for NCAA championships).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 23, 2021, 11:04:51 AM
This isn't the future of D3 in particular, but reflects a trend impacting D3 schools - I was surfing Wittenberg's site after the post about their football coach retiring and their numbers are WAY down.   According to the Witt by the numbers (https://www.wittenberg.edu/about/witt-by-the-numbers) site, their Fall 2021 enrollment is 1254 FTE.  In Fall 2020 it was 1445, a year earlier 1577 (per this story (https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/wittenberg-clark-state-enrollment-declines-mirror-national-trend/VD6WFH36GZH3XDCJQIVY5DPDFE/)).  Pat has them at 1842 (https://d3football.com/teams/Wittenberg/2021/index); in 2016 they were a little over 1900 (http://www.aicuo.edu/docs2/2017CGPages/Wittenberg.pdf).   Don't know too many schools who can survive a plummet like that for long.  Their endowment is somewhere north of $100M, and there's a $100M campaign underway that is well on its way to completion, so they have the resources to survive for the short-term - but absent getting a handle on why enrollment has declined so precipitously over the last five years, a long-term future is less assured.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 28, 2021, 10:57:53 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 16, 2021, 01:00:02 PM
Quote from: NJRoyal137 on November 16, 2021, 11:45:34 AM
I know it won't mean this, but would be cool if some of these changes would open the door to make it easier for some D3 schools to elevate 1-2 programs to the Division 1 level. A lot of schools would benefit from additional exposure and a prorated revenue boost if they were allowed to have women's basketball or men's soccer serve as an adjunct member of a D1 conference.

D3 very clearly went the other way 25-30 years ago, and about 10 years ago shut down the idea altogether going forward. I believe all of the grandfathered programs in men's soccer and almost all of them in lax have now shifted. JHU Lax, Hobart Lax (though I think they shifted back and forth once, maybe?), and Colorado College women's soccer might be the last of them. There are still a few Ice Hockey schools, mainly in the northeast, and then a bunch of schools in non-D3 sports like Rifle, Gymnastics, Bowling, Fencing and Skiing.

I think most schools found it was a massive money drain. Building D1 facilities, staff, and compliance departments for 1 sport simply wasn't worth what little exposure and money they got in those sports that aren't the big 2 of football and basketball. The ones that hang on have deep pockets and history, like JHU lacrosse, or are involved in small Olympic sport programs mostly.

The entire idea of DIII having schools add individual sports in DI is over. Those schools as mentioned that are grandfathered in and were allowed because ice hockey needed growth exist and their numbers won't increase.

Remember another key ... the D1 and D3 budgets have to be separate and D1 can't benefit D3 directly. Case in point, at Hopkins they built an entire building for lacrosse, but that isn't used for DIII athletes. Also, the new field is certainly used for other sports other than lacrosse, BUT ... anyone who watches Hopkins football will tell you it is one of the stranger looking fields ... because it is designed mainly for lacrosse.

But DIII schools adding DI sports just isn't going to happen anymore.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: smedindy on November 30, 2021, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 23, 2021, 11:04:51 AM
This isn't the future of D3 in particular, but reflects a trend impacting D3 schools - I was surfing Wittenberg's site after the post about their football coach retiring and their numbers are WAY down.   According to the Witt by the numbers (https://www.wittenberg.edu/about/witt-by-the-numbers) site, their Fall 2021 enrollment is 1254 FTE.  In Fall 2020 it was 1445, a year earlier 1577 (per this story (https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/wittenberg-clark-state-enrollment-declines-mirror-national-trend/VD6WFH36GZH3XDCJQIVY5DPDFE/)).  Pat has them at 1842 (https://d3football.com/teams/Wittenberg/2021/index); in 2016 they were a little over 1900 (http://www.aicuo.edu/docs2/2017CGPages/Wittenberg.pdf).   Don't know too many schools who can survive a plummet like that for long.  Their endowment is somewhere north of $100M, and there's a $100M campaign underway that is well on its way to completion, so they have the resources to survive for the short-term - but absent getting a handle on why enrollment has declined so precipitously over the last five years, a long-term future is less assured.

Here's a link about Witt's enrollment:

https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/wittenberg-clark-state-enrollment-declines-mirror-national-trend/VD6WFH36GZH3XDCJQIVY5DPDFE/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on November 30, 2021, 12:59:02 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 30, 2021, 12:07:20 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 23, 2021, 11:04:51 AM
This isn't the future of D3 in particular, but reflects a trend impacting D3 schools - I was surfing Wittenberg's site after the post about their football coach retiring and their numbers are WAY down.   According to the Witt by the numbers (https://www.wittenberg.edu/about/witt-by-the-numbers) site, their Fall 2021 enrollment is 1254 FTE.  In Fall 2020 it was 1445, a year earlier 1577 (per this story (https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/wittenberg-clark-state-enrollment-declines-mirror-national-trend/VD6WFH36GZH3XDCJQIVY5DPDFE/)).  Pat has them at 1842 (https://d3football.com/teams/Wittenberg/2021/index); in 2016 they were a little over 1900 (http://www.aicuo.edu/docs2/2017CGPages/Wittenberg.pdf).   Don't know too many schools who can survive a plummet like that for long.  Their endowment is somewhere north of $100M, and there's a $100M campaign underway that is well on its way to completion, so they have the resources to survive for the short-term - but absent getting a handle on why enrollment has declined so precipitously over the last five years, a long-term future is less assured.

Here's a link about Witt's enrollment:

https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/wittenberg-clark-state-enrollment-declines-mirror-national-trend/VD6WFH36GZH3XDCJQIVY5DPDFE/

Unfortunately, that story reports Wittenberg's 2020 numbers as 2021 numbers.   If you look at the actual Witt by the Numbers site linked in my message the decrease from 2020 (1445) to 2021 (1254) is more like 13% than the reported 8.3%.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on December 07, 2021, 08:42:09 AM
The NCAA has published the results of a survey taken of the membership (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/ncaa/const/Nov2021ConstC_PostSpecialConventionSurvey.pdf) after the recent constitutional rework meetings.   I haven't had the time to go through it in detail but there are definitely some nuggets in there, such as

QuoteDivision 3 is not asking for more of Division 1's revenue. Division 3 is calling out the fact that our membership is larger than Division 2, and that Division 2 also brings in zero revenue. We don't want D1's money -- we want equity with D2 [...] we'd like D2 to agree to part with some of their funding in a show of good faith. –DIII, New England Women's and Men's Conference

I think the chance of D2 voluntarily giving up one cent of their money is about the same as Santa coming down my chimney in a few weeks.   

Then there's also this
QuoteThere is significant concern over the limitation of revenue sources to 1996 for Divisions II and III. The specific argument is that, "we need a guarantee model that is financially feasible in the future. If we don't have access to proper revenue streams, then we can't meet the needs of our student-athletes." I don't think the percentage is nearly as big of a deal to our institutions as the basis. –DII, Conference Carolinas

It must be clear and unambiguous that Division II and III allocations do not include any new revenue and are tied to the revenue sources available when the provision was first adopted. –I, Sun Belt Conference

Forget Santa coming down the chimney, it would be Santa, all the reindeer, the elves, and the sleigh showing up in my living room before D1 will share any of the huge revenue gains they have seen since the mid-90s.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 07, 2021, 10:36:11 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on December 07, 2021, 08:42:09 AM
The NCAA has published the results of a survey taken of the membership (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/ncaa/const/Nov2021ConstC_PostSpecialConventionSurvey.pdf) after the recent constitutional rework meetings.   I haven't had the time to go through it in detail but there are definitely some nuggets in there, such as

QuoteDivision 3 is not asking for more of Division 1's revenue. Division 3 is calling out the fact that our membership is larger than Division 2, and that Division 2 also brings in zero revenue. We don't want D1's money -- we want equity with D2 [...] we'd like D2 to agree to part with some of their funding in a show of good faith. –DIII, New England Women's and Men's Conference

I think the chance of D2 voluntarily giving up one cent of their money is about the same as Santa coming down my chimney in a few weeks.   

Then there's also this
QuoteThere is significant concern over the limitation of revenue sources to 1996 for Divisions II and III. The specific argument is that, "we need a guarantee model that is financially feasible in the future. If we don't have access to proper revenue streams, then we can't meet the needs of our student-athletes." I don't think the percentage is nearly as big of a deal to our institutions as the basis. –DII, Conference Carolinas

It must be clear and unambiguous that Division II and III allocations do not include any new revenue and are tied to the revenue sources available when the provision was first adopted. –I, Sun Belt Conference

Forget Santa coming down the chimney, it would be Santa, all the reindeer, the elves, and the sleigh showing up in my living room before D1 will share any of the huge revenue gains they have seen since the mid-90s.

Yeah, but what are the membership numbers these days?  Does D1 and D3 combined make up 2/3rds of the votes?  If so, they can force that change in exchange for something D1 wants.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on December 07, 2021, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 07, 2021, 10:36:11 AM

Yeah, but what are the membership numbers these days?  Does D1 and D3 combined make up 2/3rds of the votes?  If so, they can force that change in exchange for something D1 wants.

They do. According to the NCAA.org site, D1 350, D2 310, D3 438.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on December 07, 2021, 11:37:04 AM
Quote from: jknezek on December 07, 2021, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 07, 2021, 10:36:11 AM

Yeah, but what are the membership numbers these days?  Does D1 and D3 combined make up 2/3rds of the votes?  If so, they can force that change in exchange for something D1 wants.

They do. According to the NCAA.org site, D1 350, D2 310, D3 438.

Very interesting thought.  But why would D1 support D3 over D2 - or perhaps, what quid could D3 offer D1 pro quo, because the next time D1 does anything out of the goodness of their heart would be the first?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 07, 2021, 12:36:46 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on December 07, 2021, 11:37:04 AM
Quote from: jknezek on December 07, 2021, 10:39:54 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 07, 2021, 10:36:11 AM

Yeah, but what are the membership numbers these days?  Does D1 and D3 combined make up 2/3rds of the votes?  If so, they can force that change in exchange for something D1 wants.

They do. According to the NCAA.org site, D1 350, D2 310, D3 438.

Very interesting thought.  But why would D1 support D3 over D2 - or perhaps, what quid could D3 offer D1 pro quo, because the next time D1 does anything out of the goodness of their heart would be the first?

There's some merit in apportioning money based on membership, right?  An even split is still more per school for D2 than for D3.  You might not want to vote against your own interests as a D2 school, but there's at least rationale for D1 coming along, especially if they get something out of it.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Inkblot on December 16, 2021, 03:18:27 PM
https://twitter.com/ChrisVannini/status/1471571689720930308

"Each division shall determine whether to allow an institution to classify a sport in a division other than the division in which it holds membership..."

That could be a significant change... but it seems like a decision on this inherently involves multiple divisions.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on December 16, 2021, 04:09:26 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on December 16, 2021, 03:18:27 PM
https://twitter.com/ChrisVannini/status/1471571689720930308

"Each division shall determine whether to allow an institution to classify a sport in a division other than the division in which it holds membership..."

That could be a significant change... but it seems like a decision on this inherently involves multiple divisions.

It won't change anything in DIII ... there is no interest in opening the door back up again. DIII put that in place... DIII is going to keep it in place. They have already given a little more autonomy to those who have DI programs with how they run those programs, that is about as much leash as they are going to allow as a division.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: TheChucker on December 18, 2021, 01:29:10 PM
Does anyone know if D3 players can participate in NIL funds? Could Bobby Joe's car dealership in Timbuktu D3 town steer some money via NIL towards D3 athletes? There are all kinds of shenanigans happening with NIL in D1 right now. Players/schools are getting creative in finding ways to fund athletes.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 18, 2021, 01:46:23 PM
Quote from: TheChucker on December 18, 2021, 01:29:10 PM
Does anyone know if D3 players can participate in NIL funds? Could Bobby Joe's car dealership in Timbuktu D3 town steer some money via NIL towards D3 athletes? There are all kinds of shenanigans happening with NIL in D1 right now. Players/schools are getting creative in finding ways to fund athletes.

Schools and conferences need to develop their own policies on how to do it - namely that the school doesn't arrange it nor does the student athlete use the school name/logo etc in their advertising.  We've already seen some places get into trouble with athletes wearing school uniforms in advertising and I know the NCAA has taken aim at deals where every member of the team gets a set amount of money.

It'll take a while to figure it out, but there are definitely d3 players with NIL deals right now.

The one that's made the most sense to me are apparel companies that give promo codes to athletes and then split proceeds on items bought with that code.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: TheChucker on December 18, 2021, 03:42:33 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 18, 2021, 01:46:23 PM
Quote from: TheChucker on December 18, 2021, 01:29:10 PM
Does anyone know if D3 players can participate in NIL funds? Could Bobby Joe's car dealership in Timbuktu D3 town steer some money via NIL towards D3 athletes? There are all kinds of shenanigans happening with NIL in D1 right now. Players/schools are getting creative in finding ways to fund athletes.

Schools and conferences need to develop their own policies on how to do it - namely that the school doesn't arrange it nor does the student athlete use the school name/logo etc in their advertising.  We've already seen some places get into trouble with athletes wearing school uniforms in advertising and I know the NCAA has taken aim at deals where every member of the team gets a set amount of money.

It'll take a while to figure it out, but there are definitely d3 players with NIL deals right now.

The one that's made the most sense to me are apparel companies that give promo codes to athletes and then split proceeds on items bought with that code.

The promo code thing is a great idea. It's common among youth sports organizations to do that.

Another idea popping into my head would be athletes doing self-made video podcasts and promoting merchandise with promo codes in a similar fashion. The viewership might be small for most, but some interesting industrious/entrepreneurial athletes could probably get some popularity.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 23, 2022, 08:25:43 AM
The latest NACUBO endowment study is out (https://www.nacubo.org/Research/2021/NACUBO-TIAA-Study-of-Endowments), and like their counterparts elsewhere Division III schools had a good year.  It's important to note that this study reflects endowments as of June 30, 2021 and results taken after the recent drops in the stock market would not be nearly as rosy.  Average endowment size increased 35% to $1.1 billion, though that is top-weighted as the median increased to only $220 million, with more than half of endowments being under $250 million.  Only one school of the 700-plus respondents - Albright - reported a loss during the period, but two other D3s - Messiah and Curry - were also at the bottom of the list with gains under 6%.  At the other extreme, Wash U, with an endowment already among the top 25 colleges, saw its endowment skyrocket by over 60% to $13.5 billion.  In terms of endowment per student, MIT, Amherst and Williams rank in the top ten of all schools, followed immediately by Pomona, Swarthmore, and Grinnell. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on February 23, 2022, 10:45:12 AM
Thanks for that link, Ron. The latest NACUBO endowment table is always a nice resource to have on hand.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on February 23, 2022, 12:41:08 PM
Some numbers at the bottom of the list for D3

Southern Virginia with by far the smallest endowment of any school that responded with just under $2M. The next smallest was a Community College with $6M
Centenary (NJ) $16.3M
MCLA $18.1M
Lakeland $21.4M
Defiance $23.1M

Smallest endowment per full time student:
Southern Virginia $1,873
University of Wisconsin System (which includes all 8 WIAC schools and UW-Superior) $4,244
Ramapo $5,321
New England College $7,624
Oswego $8,332
For reference, MIT has the largest for D3 at almost $2.5M per student with the average being $220k and median over $64k.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2022, 03:16:06 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 23, 2022, 08:25:43 AM
The latest NACUBO endowment study is out (https://www.nacubo.org/Research/2021/NACUBO-TIAA-Study-of-Endowments), and like their counterparts elsewhere Division III schools had a good year.  It's important to note that this study reflects endowments as of June 30, 2021 and results taken after the recent drops in the stock market would not be nearly as rosy.  Average endowment size increased 35% to $1.1 billion, though that is top-weighted as the median increased to only $220 million, with more than half of endowments being under $250 million.  Only one school of the 700-plus respondents - Albright - reported a loss during the period, but two other D3s - Messiah and Curry - were also at the bottom of the list with gains under 6%.  At the other extreme, Wash U, with an endowment already among the top 25 colleges, saw its endowment skyrocket by over 60% to $13.5 billion.  In terms of endowment per student, MIT, Amherst and Williams rank in the top ten of all schools, followed immediately by Pomona, Swarthmore, and Grinnell.
I would like to see a graph showing endowment on one axis with years of existence on the other axis.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on February 25, 2022, 03:17:47 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2022, 03:16:06 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 23, 2022, 08:25:43 AM
The latest NACUBO endowment study is out (https://www.nacubo.org/Research/2021/NACUBO-TIAA-Study-of-Endowments), and like their counterparts elsewhere Division III schools had a good year.  It's important to note that this study reflects endowments as of June 30, 2021 and results taken after the recent drops in the stock market would not be nearly as rosy.  Average endowment size increased 35% to $1.1 billion, though that is top-weighted as the median increased to only $220 million, with more than half of endowments being under $250 million.  Only one school of the 700-plus respondents - Albright - reported a loss during the period, but two other D3s - Messiah and Curry - were also at the bottom of the list with gains under 6%.  At the other extreme, Wash U, with an endowment already among the top 25 colleges, saw its endowment skyrocket by over 60% to $13.5 billion.  In terms of endowment per student, MIT, Amherst and Williams rank in the top ten of all schools, followed immediately by Pomona, Swarthmore, and Grinnell.
I would like to see a graph showing endowment on one axis with years of existence on the other axis.
Great idea.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 30, 2022, 10:22:19 AM
The D3 Strategic Planning and Finance Committee approved several 2023 fiscal year budget recommendations from the Championships Committee - details here (https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/6/29/media-center-diii-strategic-planning-and-finance-committee-approves-budget-recommendations.aspx).   Some of the more significant changes:
Also significant:  with the start of the 2025 fiscal year, Division III will see an overall 11% revenue increase due to the CBS/Turner Sports broadcast agreement (assuming the Power Five doesn't totally blow things up before then).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: ADL70 on July 11, 2022, 03:09:14 PM
Bill Regan new Managing Director of DIII. "Regan holds a bachelor's degree from Buffalo State College, a law degree from the University of Akron and a master's degree in sports administration from Canisius College."

https://twitter.com/NCAADIII/status/1545060018281598976?utm_source=D3Playbook&utm_campaign=c3024b5f80-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_07_11_12_04&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f4649c1bfa-c3024b5f80-419588257
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 26, 2022, 08:46:40 AM
Name, image and likeness lawsuit targets college sports TV revenue dating back to 2016

USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2022/10/22/name-image-likeness-lawsuit-targets-tv-sports-revenue-dating-2016/10574424002/) - link not explicitly paywalled, try incognito if you get blocked

Excerpts:

QuoteAttorneys for the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the NCAA and the nation's top college conferences that challenges the association's remaining rules regarding athletes' ability to make money from their names, images and likenesses reiterated in a filing Friday night that athletes are entitled to a share of the billions of dollars in college sports TV revenue not only now, but also reaching back to 2016.

The filing seeks to have the suit certified as a class action ... made clear that the plaintiffs are seeking what would likely be hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The largest shares of the damages are being sought for all current and former athletes in football, men's basketball and women's basketball who have received full athletic scholarships and play, or have played for a school in one of the Power Five conferences since June 15, 2016 ....

Damages also are being sought for athletes in all other NCAA Division I sports who were playing before July 1, 2021 and have been paid for the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) since that date.

Needless to say, the possibility of the AA having to come up with (another) settlement potentially well in excess of the Bannon settlement, and likely impacting future revenue streams due to the precedent a favorable decision would set does not bode well for Division III (or other divisions sharing that pot). 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on November 03, 2022, 05:40:40 PM
More endowment info:

https://www.collegeraptor.com/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Caz Bombers on November 10, 2022, 08:58:44 AM
Cabrini may be in some existential trouble: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/11/10/cabrini-university-makes-public-appeal-partnerships
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 16, 2022, 01:36:40 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 30, 2022, 10:22:19 AM

Also significant:  with the start of the 2025 fiscal year, Division III will see an overall 11% revenue increase due to the CBS/Turner Sports broadcast agreement (assuming the Power Five doesn't totally blow things up before then).

Something else to consider here ... the women's basketball tournament is entering it's first-ever bidding process for their event. That is also expected to bring in far more money which will end up helping DIII.

However ... costs and other factors keep working against DIII (including understandable expansion of tournaments) and that money is getting eaten alive.

DIII also plans to spend a bit more than it's budget in the coming years to bring down the reserves a tad which are believed to be too high. I need to look into this more as one of the things DI did that shot themselves in the foot prior to the pandemic starting was nearly eliminate their reserves. There was a concern that the reserves would be targeted by lawsuits and so they didn't want the money sitting there. It turns out, the lawsuits weren't allowed to go after the reserves ... DI then had NO money to speak of as a safety net when 2020 happened.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on December 16, 2022, 11:27:59 AM
Looks like NJCU is in trouble... again.

https://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2022/12/university-in-nj-to-lay-off-30-professors-eliminate-37-of-programs.html?fbclid=IwAR2p-dPpoezunx2BNoogAQl8x54JBIHEPP-puR8AGZaKXEJXX0EL3Pcto_8

Last week they announced they were cutting men's and women's golf, men's and women's tennis, and men's cross country, effective May 30, 2023. I guess when you drop from an enrollment of about 8000 to 6500 and anticipate only 4000-5000 going forward, and have a $23 million deficit, problems crop up.

I suspect the snowball is just starting to roll downhill for many of these colleges and universities.


Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 16, 2022, 11:58:06 AM

Lots of schools will be merging and rightsizing to deal with decreasing enrollments over the next decade.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on December 17, 2022, 05:56:22 PM
And piling on.... Birmingham Southern is in real trouble...

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2022/12/birmingham-southern-college-in-financial-distress-in-danger-of-closing-in-2023-lawmakers-say.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on December 18, 2022, 09:06:28 AM
Quote from: jknezek on December 17, 2022, 05:56:22 PM
And piling on.... Birmingham Southern is in real trouble...

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2022/12/birmingham-southern-college-in-financial-distress-in-danger-of-closing-in-2023-lawmakers-say.html

Sadly (as the article states) not the first time B-SC has been down this road as they had a massive restructuring in the early 2000s that cut many programs, reduced faculty and other headcount, etc.  And now to say they immediately require $30M to remain in business next year and are asking for (demanding?) $7.5M from local government on top of that ... not good.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 18, 2022, 10:32:02 AM

Wesley got gov't funding for several years before they closed.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on December 18, 2022, 11:05:02 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 18, 2022, 10:32:02 AM

Wesley got gov't funding for several years before they closed.

But this is almost an order of magnitude worse.  From an article announcing Wesley's purchase by Delaware State, (https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2020/07/09/wesley-college-set-merge-delaware-state-university/5405291002/)  dated July 9, 2020:

QuoteSince 2018, Wesley received $3.375 million in state funds, and was approved for up to $3 million on an as-needed basis in February. Since then, the school has accessed $1.8 million of that funding, a spokesperson for the state Office of Management and Budget said.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 18, 2022, 12:06:55 PM
BSC is also five times bigger than Wesley. I suspect they msoe up a smaller percentage of the local economy. It's all contextual.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on December 18, 2022, 03:07:50 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 18, 2022, 12:06:55 PM
BSC is also five times bigger than Wesley. I suspect they msoe up a smaller percentage of the local economy. It's all contextual.

Yeah. But it didn't exactly work out for Wesley either. They scraped along and then were subsumed. Which is better than being simply shut, but I don't think UAB would have much use for BSC's campus if it came to that.

When you throw yourself at the mercy of state, county and city officials to beg for money as a private institution charging on average 15-20K per year per student you are in pretty desperate straights. And in this state, where Alabama (Tuscaloosa) and Auburn aren't simply Kings, they are Emperors, you are asking a huge ask. UAB gets kicked around incessantly whenever they ask for anything, and they run an amazing Medical School. UAH has an unreal engineering program rooted in all the space related industry in Huntsville, and they are a huge afterthought. The less said about the directionals the better. For legislative purposes, higher education in Alabama only matters in 2 places.

BSC is going to have to grovel hard, and I'm not sure anyone is going to care.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 18, 2022, 06:23:54 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 18, 2022, 03:07:50 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 18, 2022, 12:06:55 PM
BSC is also five times bigger than Wesley. I suspect they msoe up a smaller percentage of the local economy. It's all contextual.

Yeah. But it didn't exactly work out for Wesley either. They scraped along and then were subsumed. Which is better than being simply shut, but I don't think UAB would have much use for BSC's campus if it came to that.

When you throw yourself at the mercy of state, county and city officials to beg for money as a private institution charging on average 15-20K per year per student you are in pretty desperate straights. And in this state, where Alabama (Tuscaloosa) and Auburn aren't simply Kings, they are Emperors, you are asking a huge ask.UAB gets kicked around incessantly whenever they ask for anything, and they run an amazing Medical School. UAH has an unreal engineering program rooted in all the space related industry in Huntsville, and they are a huge afterthought. The less said about the directionals the better. For legislative purposes, higher education in Alabama only matters in 2 places.

BSC is going to have to grovel hard, and I'm not sure anyone is going to care.
YES!!! Amazing
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 19, 2022, 03:03:21 PM

CSAC - UEC Merger

https://d3sports.com/notables/2022/12/csac-uec-merger-coming

Another Pool C bid will be available in some sports!!!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2023, 10:28:07 AM
Asking for amplification of this legislation that was passed at the convention...what are the "nuts and bolts" of this?

"Schools interested in joining the NCAA must have an invitation from an active Division III conference before applying for membership and must maintain affiliation during the membership process. "

For example...

The ASC wants to add a football-playing school. Texas Wesleyan (TexWes) is an acceptable institution to the membership and TexWes is interested in joining the ASC.

Does the ASC invite and accept TexWes as a member-in-process?
Must TexWes be a member thru the entire provisional and transition process of affiliation?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 17, 2023, 12:19:03 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2023, 10:28:07 AM
Asking for amplification of this legislation that was passed at the convention...what are the "nuts and bolts" of this?

"Schools interested in joining the NCAA must have an invitation from an active Division III conference before applying for membership and must maintain affiliation during the membership process. "

For example...

The ASC wants to add a football-playing school. Texas Wesleyan (TexWes) is an acceptable institution to the membership and TexWes is interested in joining the ASC.

Does the ASC invite and accept TexWes as a member-in-process?
Must TexWes be a member thru the entire provisional and transition process of affiliation?

Good question ... and, as an aside, the Rams would become the seventh D3 school whose name included the word "Wesleyan". How many Wesleyans do we need to accumulate before we are eligible to exchange them for valuable rewards?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 17, 2023, 12:34:24 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on January 17, 2023, 10:28:07 AM
Asking for amplification of this legislation that was passed at the convention...what are the "nuts and bolts" of this?

"Schools interested in joining the NCAA must have an invitation from an active Division III conference before applying for membership and must maintain affiliation during the membership process. "

For example...

The ASC wants to add a football-playing school. Texas Wesleyan (TexWes) is an acceptable institution to the membership and TexWes is interested in joining the ASC.

Does the ASC invite and accept TexWes as a member-in-process?
Must TexWes be a member thru the entire provisional and transition process of affiliation?

I read it as saying before TW could apply for D3 membership, they'd have to have a binding invitation from the ASC to become a member once the NCAA has approved the application.  While completing the probationary period TW and the ASC must retain their partnership. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 17, 2023, 04:24:13 PM
Basically what Ron said ... there has to be a conference home for schools entering DIII. And I believe it has to be a full membership, not associate, but I'll double-check.

The same rule DII and DI have. We have schools like Bob Jones joining DIII with no path ... still.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 21, 2023, 03:21:01 PM
California bill calls for revenue sharing in college sports

https://apnews.com/article/politics-sports-california-state-government-chris-holden-san-diego-699825d02972aeb2a2b0ab854b5b843f

From the article ...

"Assembly Bill 252 — introduced by Holden, a Democrat whose district includes Pasadena — calls for Division I schools in California to share 50% of revenue with athletes who are considered to be undervalued because the amount of their athletic scholarships doesn't match their market value. That would mostly be aimed at athletes competing in the revenue-generating sports such as football and basketball, but not exclusively."

Interesting development...

I also need some education on NIL's in D-3. Could a wealthy D-3 backer offer an amount, e.g., $1000, in NIL money to entice an athlete to play for a D-3 school?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 21, 2023, 04:34:48 PM

NIL rules aren't any different for D3.  A number of players do have local advertising deals.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 26, 2023, 08:42:15 AM
Speaking of NIL, here's a New York Times article (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magazine/ncaa-nba-student-athlete.html?unlocked_article_code=7iTBjAaskF-CYNfTGSqVgZMKg5t_NuUBSC9FV5VQRmzaMHyMqScBfeope1R9yJhVL0mHkSkuStg7AsSNnr78N8JGTH-EhHe0Py8yWCB2QIvVw3nXcYRLIZS_t4fb1JVom7HmDGE6y780495rR-YMvHDNmhXk-qLMt_ealj7TPBQWLCjJKp5H5eU6DFEKzqeIWrvt6fw8Ugff8gKEYSGchHQ7WiB5xUK7sArBlNahjjaQ7EG7rwihQ7DA42ig9lGrSaMyrTSP_RjbupkjV1W63fZUZmGzBn1Cg0rJBCZukL2tJL5FJQszfpB9Ty2CX8oe4pnpGYiLpQnemiO1MCA-ByXBgA&smid=share-url) (gift link, no paywall) discussing the impact of NIL on Division I sports programs.  One of the major takeaways is that with the ability to directly support individual athletes, funds formerly going to athletic programs may dry up, impacting minor sports that already can't fund themselves.   I suppose that could trickle into D3, though it's hard to imagine most of those supporting D3 programs as perceiving enough of a bang for the buck incentive to support individual athletes over programs. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on January 26, 2023, 12:16:05 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 26, 2023, 08:42:15 AM
Speaking of NIL, here's a New York Times article (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/24/magazine/ncaa-nba-student-athlete.html?unlocked_article_code=7iTBjAaskF-CYNfTGSqVgZMKg5t_NuUBSC9FV5VQRmzaMHyMqScBfeope1R9yJhVL0mHkSkuStg7AsSNnr78N8JGTH-EhHe0Py8yWCB2QIvVw3nXcYRLIZS_t4fb1JVom7HmDGE6y780495rR-YMvHDNmhXk-qLMt_ealj7TPBQWLCjJKp5H5eU6DFEKzqeIWrvt6fw8Ugff8gKEYSGchHQ7WiB5xUK7sArBlNahjjaQ7EG7rwihQ7DA42ig9lGrSaMyrTSP_RjbupkjV1W63fZUZmGzBn1Cg0rJBCZukL2tJL5FJQszfpB9Ty2CX8oe4pnpGYiLpQnemiO1MCA-ByXBgA&smid=share-url) (gift link, no paywall) discussing the impact of NIL on Division I sports programs.  One of the major takeaways is that with the ability to directly support individual athletes, funds formerly going to athletic programs may dry up, impacting minor sports that already can't fund themselves.   I suppose that could trickle into D3, though it's hard to imagine most of those supporting D3 programs as perceiving enough of a bang for the buck incentive to support individual athletes over programs.
Was there any discussion of taxes (gift or income) coming into play?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 26, 2023, 01:39:33 PM
I'm sure NIL moneys received are treated as income by the IRS and state/local agencies.  One of the players receiving NILs quoted in the article mentioned learning about tax forms as a part of the process.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 31, 2023, 12:32:35 PM
Webster is having troubles, too.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/as-annual-losses-reach-25m-webster-university-looks-to-pivot-student-focus/article_67d29702-415a-5817-aadd-1f0b572586ee.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2023, 12:15:59 PM
Whittier College article in Higher Education

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/02/15/clash-viewpoints-struggling-college

"A look at the college's Common Data Set shows a significant enrollment slump at Whittier. While the college counted 1,833 students in fall 2019, the year before the coronavirus pandemic, that number has fallen post-pandemic, which is true for many colleges across the U.S. By fall 2021, the last year for which Common Data Set numbers are available, enrollment stood at 1,387.

"Recent application data also show a significant drop-off. A total of 5,301 students applied to Whittier for the fall 2020 class, but that number subsequently fell to 3,062 for fall 2022. ..."

"... with trustees voting at the time to ax football, men's lacrosse and men's and women's golf. The decision to cut football at Whittier—where Richard Nixon once played for the Poets—remains especially contentious given the large roster of about 80 players. Likewise, the men's lacrosse team also hovered around 40 players. Given that scholarships are not allowed at the Division III level, losing those players could mean losing students who pay tuition."



(My comment -- To lose another 10% of the enrollment by cutting those sports is not re-assuring that the school is on the right track.)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on February 16, 2023, 05:10:09 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2023, 12:15:59 PM
Whittier College article in Higher Education

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/02/15/clash-viewpoints-struggling-college

"A look at the college's Common Data Set shows a significant enrollment slump at Whittier. While the college counted 1,833 students in fall 2019, the year before the coronavirus pandemic, that number has fallen post-pandemic, which is true for many colleges across the U.S. By fall 2021, the last year for which Common Data Set numbers are available, enrollment stood at 1,387.

"Recent application data also show a significant drop-off. A total of 5,301 students applied to Whittier for the fall 2020 class, but that number subsequently fell to 3,062 for fall 2022. ..."

"... with trustees voting at the time to ax football, men's lacrosse and men's and women's golf. The decision to cut football at Whittier—where Richard Nixon once played for the Poets—remains especially contentious given the large roster of about 80 players. Likewise, the men's lacrosse team also hovered around 40 players. Given that scholarships are not allowed at the Division III level, losing those players could mean losing students who pay tuition."



(My comment -- To lose another 10% of the enrollment by cutting those sports is not re-assuring that the school is on the right track.)
Thank you Ralph!   
Bad management by people who know little about higher education.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: monsoon on February 17, 2023, 09:51:18 PM
Not D3, but NAIA Trinity International Univ. in north suburban Chicago is shutting down their entire on-campus undergraduate program after this semester, moving all undergrad classes to on-line only. I imagine this will end intercollegiate athletics for them.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 20, 2023, 08:32:50 AM
The 2022 NACUBO Endowment study (https://www.nacubo.org/Research/2022/Public-NTSE-Tables) has released its results (https://www.nacubo.org/-/media/Nacubo/Documents/research/2022-NTSE-Public-Tables--Endowment-Market-Values--FINAL.ashx?la=en&hash=362DC3F9BDEB1DF0C22B05D544AD24D1C44E318D). 

The total endowment size was only down 4% thanks to a 22% increase in total gifts year over year.  The average ROI on investments last year was -8.0%. 

The average endowment?  $1.19 billion.  Yes, billion. 
The *median* endowment?  $208.7 million, showing the impact of the schools at the top with assets well north of $10 billion.  Only 120 of the 689 schools have at least an average endowment.    NOTE:  last year's study included 734 schools.  While we have lost some colleges it seems more likely that a number of schools have decided it is no longer in their interests to participate. 

D3 schools in the top 50:

6. MIT $24.7B (-10.13%)
14. Wash U $12.2B (-9.48%)
17. Emory $10.0B (-9.37%)
20. Johns Hopkins $8.2B (-11.50%)
29. NYU $5.1B (-7.64%)
33. Carnegie Mellon $3.9B (-2.79%)
35. Cal Tech $3.6B (-4.47%)
37. Williams $3.5B (-15.26%)
41. Amherst $3.3B (-12.01%)
48. Wellesley $2.8B (-12.05%)
49. Pomona $2.7B (-9.40%)
50. Rochester $2.7B (-14.26%)

And a shout out (of course, LOL) to my alma mater which managed to almost break even:

81.  Trinity University (TX) $1.7B (-0.66%)

Important to note that the endowment values shown are (mostly) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022.  Most markets (except tech-heavy ones like the NASDAQ) are up modestly since then. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 21, 2023, 08:34:40 AM
Courtesy of Steve Ulrich's excellent daily D3Playbook.com (https://www.d3playbook.com/) newsletter, the best- and worst-performing D3 endowments for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022:

Largest Increase in Market Value
Largest Decline in Market Value

The Southwestern entry on the list is interesting as they sold land during the period which, according to this article (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/03/11/colleges-take-advantage-real-estate-bubble), resulted in a $25 million contribution to their endowment.  They would have been a below average performer (losing around 7%) lacking that one-time event. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 22, 2023, 08:28:07 AM
Again courtesy of Steve Ulrich's excellent daily D3Playbook.com newsletter; endowments by conference (the rest will come tomorrow).  If the school you are looking for is not here, it is one of dozens (hundreds?) who do not participate in the NACUBO study.  Don't see a college you are interested in?  Propublica.org maintains a wealth of publicly available information about non-profits; many have yearly financial audits which contain information about audits.  If you know the EIN of a school add it to the end of https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/ leaving off the dash [e.g. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/741161940 for Mary Hardin-Baylor], otherwise just go to Propublica.org and search on the school name. 

2/23:  edited to move Suffolk to the CCC and add info on finding endowments not in the study

Allegheny MountainAmerican RiversAmerican SouthwestAtlantic EastCCIWCentennialCoast-to-CoastCollegiate Conference of South Colonial StatesCommonwealth CoastEmpire 8Great NortheastHeartlandLandmarkLibertyMASCACMichiganMiddle AtlanticMidwestMinnesota
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on February 23, 2023, 08:28:16 AM
Here are the rest of the endowment per college, per D3Playbook.com.  I don't have time to do all the fancy formatting or add ",000" to all the entries as I did yesterday, so these are in thousands (e.g. Oberlin's actual endowment is just over $1.2 billion, not $1.2 million).

Don't see a college you are interested in?  Propublica.org maintains a wealth of publicly available information about non-profits; many have yearly financial audits which contain information about endowments.  If you know the EIN of a school add it to the end of https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/ leaving off the dash [e.g. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/741161940 for Mary Hardin-Baylor], otherwise just go to Propublica.org and search on the school name. 


NCAC
Oberlin, $1,201,825 (-7.34%)
Denison, $1,068,552 (-8.08%)
DePauw, $719,982 (-10.19%)
Kenyon, $517,007 (-5.26%)
Wooster, $374,948 (-13.05%)
Wabash, $385,200 (-8.27%)
Ohio Wesleyan, $277,679 (-9.82%)

NECC
Lesley, $46,129 (-5.77%)
New England College, $26,850 (-13.87)

NESCAC
Williams, $3,534,369 (-15.26%)
Amherst, $3,321,853 (-12.82%)
Bowdoin, $2,474,541 (-9.01%)
Tufts, $2,350,755 (-11.18%)
Wesleyan, $1,485,020 (-5.57%)
Middlebury, $1,457,208 (-2.90%)
Hamilton, $1,275,562 (-9.63%)
Colby, $1,112,451 (-10.76%)
Trinity, $780,152 (-0.38%)
Bates, $418,544 (-10.19%)
Connecticut College, $416,635 (-4.12%)

New Jersey
Rowan, $361,319 (+5.50%)
Montclair State, $93,623 (-5.68%)
TCNJ, $62,381 (-6.46%)
Ramapo, $22,652 (-15.78%)

NEWMAC
MIT, $24,739,862 (-10.13%)
Wellesley, $2,846,865 (-12.05%)
Smith, $2,467,996 (-3.56%)
Mount Holyoke, $1,002,549 (-6.13%)
Babson, $660,904 (-5.53%)
WPI, $589,683 (-7.07%)
Clark, $487,169 (-3.76%)
Wheaton, $241,464 (-9.52%)
Springfield, $89,648 (-13.35%)

North Atlantic
Thomas, $26,770 (-8.05%)
Husson, $23,488 (-6.92%)

Northern Athletics
St. Norbert, $163,645 (-12.20%)
Concordia (Wis.), $109,299 (-4.13%)
MSOE, $77,285 (-12.35%)
Dominican, $47,176 (-8.16%)
Wisconsin Lutheran, $43,865 (-5.36%)
Lakeland, $18,308 (-14.63%)

Northwest
Whitman, $683,569 (-18.60%)
Puget Sound, $427,977 (-9.75%)
Lewis & Clark, $306,390 (-3.68%)
Willamette, $304,324 (-13.45%)
Whitworth, $183,144 (-9.87%)
Linfield, $104,846 (-18.78%)

ODAC
Washington and Lee, $1,998,334 (-4.50%)
Hampden-Sydney, $231,544 (-6.22%)
Hollins, $214,659 (-2.23%)
Randolph-Macon, $200,256 (-8.95%)
Lynchburg, $141,097 (-3.11%)
Roanoke, $128,602 (-11.32%)
Virginia Wesleyan, $115,390 (+76.09%)
Bridgewater, $97,906 (-19.81%)
Shenandoah, $71,875 (-14.21%)
Ferrum, $57,950 (-12.05%)
Averett, $21,802 (-13.82%)

Ohio
John Carroll, $271,248 (-6.28%)
Baldwin Wallace, $181,875 (-15.42%)
Mount Union, $150,993 (-10.57%)
Capital, $125,444 (-8.53%)
Muskingum, $90.078 (-3.48%)
Heidelberg, $59,889 (-4.45%)

Presidents
Allegheny, $264,304 (-8,57%)
Westminster, $132,583 (-4.00)
Washington & Jefferson, $130,983 (-14.01%)

SAA
Berry, $1,236,198 (+1.92%)
Sewanee, $439,971 (-15.25%)
Centre, $408,796 (-2.72%)
Rhodes, $394,337 (-8.67%)

SCAC
Trinity, $1,704,816 (-0.66%)
Colorado College, $822,931 (-9.43%)
Southwestern, $366,390 (+0.42%)
Austin, $157,925 (-13.63%)
Texas Lutheran, $95,683 (-14.61%)
U. of Dallas, $85,555 (-12.57%)

SCIAC
Caltech, $3,635,000 (-4.47%)
Pomona, $2,749,865 (-9.40%)
Claremont McKenna, $1,142,670 (-6.50%)
Chapman, $580,821 (+2.29%)
Occidental, $575,933 (+0.02%)
Scripps, $460,616 (-14.70%)
Harvey Mudd, $401,525 (-9.51%)
Redlands, $232,004 (-10.50%)
Cal Lutheran, $133,136 (-8.14%)

Skyline
Yeshiva, $681,075 (-10.41%)
Sarah Lawrence, $14,236 (-4.51%)

St. Louis
Principia, $855,284 (-3.77%)
Webster, $143,986 (-8.60%)

SUNYAC
Oneonta, $66,608 (-12.23%)
Cortland, $54,532 (-10.95%)
Oswego, $53,910 (-4.89%)
Potsdam, $43,027 (-12.64%)
Fredonia, $42,206 (-13.33%)
Plattsburgh, $25,521 (-11.21%)

UAA
Washington U., $12,252,329 (-9.48%)
Emory, $9,997,742 (-9.37%)
New York U., $5,148,741 (-7.64%)
Carnegie Mellon, $3,967,324
Rochester, $2,739,187 (-14.26%)
Case Western Reserve, $2,188,161 (-7.05%)
Brandeis, $1,205,167 (-6.29%)

Upper Midwest
Bethany Lutheran, $48,033 (-8.78%)

USA South
Mary Baldwin, $32,744 (+2.11%)

Wisconsin
Eau Claire, $147,408 (+38.11%)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 01, 2023, 09:03:22 AM
Again courtesy of Steve Ulrich's D3Playbook.com, this terribly depressing article THE NCAA NEEDS THE POWER FIVE. DO THE POWER FIVE NEED THE NCAA? (https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2023/joe-moglia-predicts-power-five-ncaa-split-1234710636/) by Joe Moglia, chair of athletics at Coastal Carolina, predicting the departure of Power Five football from the NCAA.  It has the pretty typical myopic "we'll still get ours, and the impact on everyone else doesn't matter because we're a bidness" focus typical of big D1 sports.

He predicts a split within the next three years. 

Oh, BTW, this attitude is no surprise given that this guy used to be CEO/Chairman of TD Ameritrade and is currently chairman of a couple wealth management firms.  And while he was at Ameritrade, also the HFC at Coastal.  His LinkedIn profile headline:  "Always looking for the next big win."  You could probably add "at the expense of others" to that. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 01, 2023, 09:27:21 AM

This has been a long time coming. You'll get four 16 team leagues doing their own thing. The only question is if throwing a bone to everyone else is good PR and they keep the NCAA around to administer the non revenue sports. I've been predicting this on these boards for more than a decade. Talked to a retired Big12 AD in 2005 who told me this was on the table as a future development even before 2000. The only question was when they could pull it off.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 02, 2023, 05:35:40 PM
Finlandia folds, will not enroll students after the current school year https://www.finlandia.edu/about/teachout/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on March 02, 2023, 11:07:03 PM
Yeah it was an uphill battle for them in Hancock. Being across the bridge from Michigan Tech didn't help matters with a limited amount of majors to pull people and athletes into their doors.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: markerickson on March 03, 2023, 09:24:24 AM
Just stumbled upon this NACUBO information.  I knew about NACUBO through the lens of "tuition discounting."  Good reading material after this weekend.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 08, 2023, 09:12:38 AM
Speaking of schools with big endowments, there's been a lawsuit filed against the Ivy League schools alleging they engage in price-fixing by not awarding athlete scholarships like other Division I schools do (https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/03/08/lawsuit-challenges-ivy-refusal-to-offer-athletic-scholarships/).   One wonders, if the lawsuit is lost or they just don't want to fight it, if they might just take their act to D3.  Doubt it, and they have more money than Croesus to fight this, but with the changing landscape in D1 athletics you never know. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 08, 2023, 11:44:36 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 08, 2023, 09:12:38 AM
Speaking of schools with big endowments, there's been a lawsuit filed against the Ivy League schools alleging they engage in price-fixing by not awarding athlete scholarships like other Division I schools do (https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2023/03/08/lawsuit-challenges-ivy-refusal-to-offer-athletic-scholarships/).   One wonders, if the lawsuit is lost or they just don't want to fight it, if they might just take their act to D3.  Doubt it, and they have more money than Croesus to fight this, but with the changing landscape in D1 athletics you never know.
Don't you love this!

Do you think that the average D-1 message board would have a Classical reference to the King of Lydia?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on March 08, 2023, 11:58:36 AM
I have to admit, this lawsuit makes me laugh. If they had free ride offers, but chose the Ivy League instead... Isn't that on them? Frankly, any D3 school could get sued the same way if they make any money off commercializing athletics (t-shirt sales, radio contracts, fundraising), which I assume most do with limited results.

But still, this smacks of choosing to buy a house under an airline flight path and then sueing about it when you could have afforded a similar house not under the flight path.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 08, 2023, 03:23:37 PM
Quote from: jknezek on March 08, 2023, 11:58:36 AM
I have to admit, this lawsuit makes me laugh. If they had free ride offers, but chose the Ivy League instead... Isn't that on them? Frankly, any D3 school could get sued the same way if they make any money off commercializing athletics (t-shirt sales, radio contracts, fundraising), which I assume most do with limited results.

But still, this smacks of choosing to buy a house under an airline flight path and then sueing about it when you could have afforded a similar house not under the flight path.

It's not about the athletes - it's about overturning the entire Ivy financial aid system.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on March 21, 2023, 12:01:12 PM
Not DIII, but it's interesting that they didn't drop to DIII. I've long said there is little financial point in DII and small school DI. Mid-Majors and up? Maybe, depending on how you run your athletics outside of football and basketball. But everyone else, it just has to be a money pit.

When the P5 take their money and run, which I think they will do within the next 10-15 years, I bet we are going to see more and more schools dropping scholarship athletics. Of course, we are also going to see a massive change in DIII as it is going to get real expensive to do those national tournaments.

But I'm shocked St. Francis (NY) did not follow U of Hartford to DIII. At least you can convert your athletic facilities, which they have a few that are on campus and not rented space, to tuition paying student slots.

and edited because I forgot the stupid link:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2023/03/20/st-francis-college-brooklyn-eliminates-entire-athletic-program/11510364002/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0QcNdAhU1ws2jVzp17iLDgjpJcY3dKyvpt-1mouClXfmBT_9c5KkII2p8
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 21, 2023, 12:16:51 PM
What I have been told is that the Board of Trustees at St. Francis did not want to consider having Division III athletics.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on March 21, 2023, 12:50:06 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 21, 2023, 12:16:51 PM
What I have been told is that the Board of Trustees at St. Francis did not want to consider having Division III athletics.

Interesting. I'd love to know the "why" of that thought. It does look like they are the only tenant of the Generoso Pope Athletic Complex on campus, but it doesn't say if the school owns it or not. No other athletic facilities are listed, so I don't know where the soccer teams play. But if they don't own the Athletic Complex, or they have an operating agreement coming to a close on it, or it's about to fall apart and needs massive renovations (it is 50 years old),  I could see why going DIII wouldn't make much sense. If they do own it, I'm sure it will still be used for intramurals, but hard to imagine that going DIII wouldn't have helped bring in tuition dollars to the school.

Always so interesting when this stuff happens.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 23, 2023, 07:34:48 AM
I wonder if it has to do with cost? Dropping to D3 essentially means continuing to run a D1 program for 2-3 years, costwise.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 23, 2023, 08:24:27 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 23, 2023, 07:34:48 AM
I wonder if it has to do with cost? Dropping to D3 essentially means continuing to run a D1 program for 2-3 years, costwise.

Not to mention that the only significant ongoing cost, that of continuing to provide athletic/academic/financial aid to remaining former athletes for a few years at most, will be cut back even further as many will seek to continue their playing careers elsewhere.

I posted this somewhere else; in the audit ending June 30, 2021 St. Francis' endowment was a miserly $40M, which isn't much for a college of roughly 2,300 in a high-cost spot like the NYC area.  Unless they had substantial fundraising since then the vagaries of the market (combined with operational withdrawals from the endowment) have probably reduced that further - which may have contributed to their decision. 

But I still agree with jknezek; was the possibility even looked at, or was it the loss of "prestige" associated with going to D3?  Or did they look at B-SC, struggling mightily after their journey from D1 to D3, and say it wasn't worth considering?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on March 23, 2023, 08:59:48 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 23, 2023, 08:24:27 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 23, 2023, 07:34:48 AM
I wonder if it has to do with cost? Dropping to D3 essentially means continuing to run a D1 program for 2-3 years, costwise.

Not to mention that the only significant ongoing cost, that of continuing to provide athletic/academic/financial aid to remaining former athletes for a few years at most, will be cut back even further as many will seek to continue their playing careers elsewhere.

I posted this somewhere else; in the audit ending June 30, 2021 St. Francis' endowment was a miserly $40M, which isn't much for a college of roughly 2,300 in a high-cost spot like the NYC area.  Unless they had substantial fundraising since then the vagaries of the market (combined with operational withdrawals from the endowment) have probably reduced that further - which may have contributed to their decision. 

But I still agree with jknezek; was the possibility even looked at, or was it the loss of "prestige" associated with going to D3?  Or did they look at B-SC, struggling mightily after their journey from D1 to D3, and say it wasn't worth considering?

I doubt B-SC sets an example for anyone. That's just a case of significant mismanagement and mistakes on the part of multiple administrations over 20 years, with only one significant exception. It had little to do with dropping to D3 and everything to do with an early "build it and they will come" added to 20 years of accounting errors, and a failure to earn the trust of donors.

I bet most B-SC alumni have spent more on Alabama and Auburn football tickets than they have donated to their alma mater over the years.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 23, 2023, 10:29:36 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 23, 2023, 08:24:27 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 23, 2023, 07:34:48 AM
I wonder if it has to do with cost? Dropping to D3 essentially means continuing to run a D1 program for 2-3 years, costwise.

Not to mention that the only significant ongoing cost, that of continuing to provide athletic/academic/financial aid to remaining former athletes for a few years at most, will be cut back even further as many will seek to continue their playing careers elsewhere.

I posted this somewhere else; in the audit ending June 30, 2021 St. Francis' endowment was a miserly $40M, which isn't much for a college of roughly 2,300 in a high-cost spot like the NYC area.  Unless they had substantial fundraising since then the vagaries of the market (combined with operational withdrawals from the endowment) have probably reduced that further - which may have contributed to their decision. 

But I still agree with jknezek; was the possibility even looked at, or was it the loss of "prestige" associated with going to D3?  Or did they look at B-SC, struggling mightily after their journey from D1 to D3, and say it wasn't worth considering?

It's been seventeen years since Birmingham-Southern transitioned from D1 to D3. It's awfully hard to pin a school's financial misfortune upon something that happened a freshman's entire lifetime ago.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 23, 2023, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 23, 2023, 10:29:36 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 23, 2023, 08:24:27 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 23, 2023, 07:34:48 AM
I wonder if it has to do with cost? Dropping to D3 essentially means continuing to run a D1 program for 2-3 years, costwise.

Not to mention that the only significant ongoing cost, that of continuing to provide athletic/academic/financial aid to remaining former athletes for a few years at most, will be cut back even further as many will seek to continue their playing careers elsewhere.

I posted this somewhere else; in the audit ending June 30, 2021 St. Francis' endowment was a miserly $40M, which isn't much for a college of roughly 2,300 in a high-cost spot like the NYC area.  Unless they had substantial fundraising since then the vagaries of the market (combined with operational withdrawals from the endowment) have probably reduced that further - which may have contributed to their decision. 

But I still agree with jknezek; was the possibility even looked at, or was it the loss of "prestige" associated with going to D3?  Or did they look at B-SC, struggling mightily after their journey from D1 to D3, and say it wasn't worth considering?

It's been seventeen years since Birmingham-Southern transitioned from D1 to D3. It's awfully hard to pin a school's financial misfortune upon something that happened a freshman's entire lifetime ago.

I've seen administrations do worse things.

Hartford being the most recent, I wonder if that's what they were trying to avoid -- a large backlash and a lawsuit and all that.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 23, 2023, 02:43:40 PM
The Hartford scenario is much more likely, especially given the geographic proximity of the two schools (120 miles) and recency of that change. 

But make no mistake, when looking for a reason not to do something, some will latch on to even far-fetched examples to buttress their case.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 28, 2023, 10:21:22 AM
Looks like the state of Alabama is not going to bail out Birmingham-Southern:

https://abc3340.com/news/local/taxpayer-money-will-not-be-used-to-help-birmingham-southern-college-kay-ivey-money-finance-tuition-bsc-

Next week's BSC board of trustees meeting could be the death knell of the school.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 28, 2023, 12:25:14 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 28, 2023, 10:21:22 AM
Looks like the state of Alabama is not going to bail out Birmingham-Southern:

https://abc3340.com/news/local/taxpayer-money-will-not-be-used-to-help-birmingham-southern-college-kay-ivey-money-finance-tuition-bsc-

Next week's BSC board of trustees meeting could be the death knell of the school.

Our good friend BSCPanthers (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?action=profile;u=62099) said this week (on the SAA football chat) (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=7534.msg2077349#msg2077349) that the board as set that date, April 5th, as the final date of reckoning.  And it doesn't sound good as they have gotten nothing better than platitudes from local government and absolutely zero support from state "leaders" like Ivey despite there being $2.8 BILLION in surplus educational funding available.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 28, 2023, 04:02:02 PM
Former D3 member (2013-21) Iowa Wesleyan is closing (https://www.thegazette.com/higher-education/iowa-wesleyan-university-closing-after-181-years/).   They too had tried to get money ($12M) from American Rescue Plan Act funds, similar to Birmingham-Southern's request, only to be denied by their governor, Kim Reynolds.  The usual factors (inflationary pressures; enrollment trends; significant drop in philanthropic giving) were cited. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 28, 2023, 05:37:53 PM
Iowa Wesleyan had been hanging on by its fingernails for ages. I'm actually pretty surprised that it made through the Covid shutdown.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: awadelewis on March 29, 2023, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 28, 2023, 05:37:53 PM
Iowa Wesleyan had been hanging on by its fingernails for ages. I'm actually pretty surprised that it made through the Covid shutdown.

IW survived by using a rural infrastructure loan program to keep afloat.   Cost of interest on that loan was one of the reasons that the state government used to justify not allocating COVID money to them.   And now the USDA ends up owning a college campus in Iowa.

The D-I mess at B-SC was part of a larger foo-bar by their administration at the time that flushed the endowment to fund that athletics change and a bunch of other changes on their campus.   Combine that with some serious mismanagement over the years with things like financial aid and you see the mess they have today.    And they have few friends in our Legislature here in Alabama.   Hope for the best but I'm not very confident in a good outcome.   Lots of good commentary over on the SAA football board about the situation.

The comments on St. Francis dropping their athletic programs rather than going D3 are interesting.    The NCAA's D3 Revenue and Expenses Report for 2011-2015 (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D32015RevExp.pdf (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D32015RevExp.pdf) reported that the median total expenses for programs in the division was $3M in 2015.    That's a hefty chunk of change for an institution, particularly if they're tuition dependent.    There is more recent data in this presentation:  https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/Finances/2021RES_D3-RevExpReport.pdf (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/Finances/2021RES_D3-RevExpReport.pdf)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 30, 2023, 08:36:50 AM
Quote from: awadelewis on March 29, 2023, 05:53:49 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 28, 2023, 05:37:53 PM
Iowa Wesleyan had been hanging on by its fingernails for ages. I'm actually pretty surprised that it made through the Covid shutdown.

IW survived by using a rural infrastructure loan program to keep afloat.   Cost of interest on that loan was one of the reasons that the state government used to justify not allocating COVID money to them.   And now the USDA ends up owning a college campus in Iowa.

The D-I mess at B-SC was part of a larger foo-bar by their administration at the time that flushed the endowment to fund that athletics change and a bunch of other changes on their campus.   Combine that with some serious mismanagement over the years with things like financial aid and you see the mess they have today.    And they have few friends in our Legislature here in Alabama.   Hope for the best but I'm not very confident in a good outcome.   Lots of good commentary over on the SAA football board about the situation.

The comments on St. Francis dropping their athletic programs rather than going D3 are interesting.    The NCAA's D3 Revenue and Expenses Report for 2011-2015 (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D32015RevExp.pdf (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D32015RevExp.pdf) reported that the median total expenses for programs in the division was $3M in 2015.    That's a hefty chunk of change for an institution, particularly if they're tuition dependent.    There is more recent data in this presentation:  https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/Finances/2021RES_D3-RevExpReport.pdf (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/Finances/2021RES_D3-RevExpReport.pdf)
awadelewis, thanks for the NCAA report on the expenses of football. I do need help in interpreting the data on "slide #6". I try to subtract the numbers to reach the net generated revenue and they do not agree. Do the "total revenues" consider that a student athlete might not attend the college if they did not have football? Might we extend those calculations to other sports? Is it nihilistic to deduce that colleges should just consider athletic programs a waste of money?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on March 30, 2023, 12:06:59 PM
 "Is it nihilistic to deduce that colleges should just consider athletic programs a waste of money?"

If money is the key to evaluating everything, then people would only consider marrying only the richest person they know without regarding personality, potential as a good parent, beauty, or any other qualities.  Not everybody want to go to a school like Reed.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on March 30, 2023, 12:49:22 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 30, 2023, 08:36:50 AM
Might we extend those calculations to other sports? Is it nihilistic to deduce that colleges should just consider athletic programs a waste of money?

Not a waste of money, but possibly an expense of recruitment. We have facilities wars all the time in higher education. Not just better classrooms and labs and information infrastructure, but better dorms and certainly better athletic facilities. When I went to W&L, the dorms weren't air conditioned. It was hardly necessary, the lower Shenandoah Valley wasn't that hot September through June, but it was something that was brought up time and again as I was a campus tour guide my junior and senior years. Eventually the money had to be spent, because W&L was falling behind.

The same goes for sports in a lot of ways. Not so much the spectator side in D3, but the athlete side. If you are competing for a student with 5 other similar schools, and you are among 2 that aren't offering soccer, and the athlete wants to play, you and that other school are likely to lose. In the past, maybe that was ok, because there were 10 more behind that student, but it's becoming a lot more competitive now. And for a see of similar, smaller liberal arts schools, the type of schools that populate a lot of D3, you can't afford to not be competitive.

Whether that is suites instead of dorms, cafes instead of cafeterias, interscholastic instead of intramural sports, sophisticated science labs instead of basic classrooms, or popular technical majors versus classical education, if you fall behind, you could quickly find yourself in pretty dire straights in the near future.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 30, 2023, 03:31:05 PM

You can get a lot of good info from the DOE database, as well - they also separate data into football and non-football to get better comparative numbers.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/search
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: awadelewis on March 30, 2023, 08:54:48 PM
It's an odd way to present that data.   I'm not certain what point the authors were trying to make presenting the data in form.

I think @jknezek has it right about the intangible benefits of athletic programs.  Look back in the threads in the SCAC and SAA boards that talked about Hendrix and Berry adding football programs and I think you'll see lots of support when @Jknezek says up-thread.  Athletics has qualitative benefits that reports like this don't capture.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 30, 2023, 08:36:50 AM
awadelewis, thanks for the NCAA report on the expenses of football. I do need help in interpreting the data on "slide #6". I try to subtract the numbers to reach the net generated revenue and they do not agree. Do the "total revenues" consider that a student athlete might not attend the college if they did not have football? Might we extend those calculations to other sports? Is it nihilistic to deduce that colleges should just consider athletic programs a waste of money?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on April 02, 2023, 08:15:01 PM
Article in the LA Times regarding struggles at Whittier, which has seen enrollment decline from roughly 1850 to 1200 since 2018.  Besides the numerical issues, there's apparently a leadership crisis.  Endowment for a school that size is actually decent ($120m).

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-30/whittier-college-hit-with-low-enrollment-financial-woes

One of the accompanying charts shows enrollment at La Verne with a similar percentage decline.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on April 05, 2023, 03:24:44 PM
FYI

Trocaire College plans to acquire Medaille University starting in July

https://www.wivb.com/news/education/colleges-universities-buffalo/trocaire-college-plans-to-acquire-medaille-university-starting-in-july/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on April 05, 2023, 05:24:15 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 05, 2023, 03:24:44 PM
FYI

Trocaire College plans to acquire Medaille University starting in July

https://www.wivb.com/news/education/colleges-universities-buffalo/trocaire-college-plans-to-acquire-medaille-university-starting-in-july/
I can't find any sports at Trocaire, but Medaille is in the Empire 8.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on April 05, 2023, 06:08:30 PM
Trocaire is a two-year institution.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on April 05, 2023, 08:24:58 PM
So Tocaire will become four years?
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on April 06, 2023, 12:23:01 AM
https://twitter.com/ZayasRiley/status/1643795661056245760?s=20

"Hearing that we will find out the fate of D3 member (and baseball powerhouse) Birmingham-Southern tomorrow at 11 am CT. School is facing closure due to financial reasons. Would be a shame to lose another D3 school for this reason. People are staying optimistic."

https://www.wvtm13.com/article/future-of-birmingham-southern-still-unclear/43523016
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on April 06, 2023, 01:11:22 PM
Quote from: Kuiper on April 06, 2023, 12:23:01 AM
https://twitter.com/ZayasRiley/status/1643795661056245760?s=20

"Hearing that we will find out the fate of D3 member (and baseball powerhouse) Birmingham-Southern tomorrow at 11 am CT. School is facing closure due to financial reasons. Would be a shame to lose another D3 school for this reason. People are staying optimistic."

https://www.wvtm13.com/article/future-of-birmingham-southern-still-unclear/43523016

UPDATE:  Birmingham Southern announced that they would stay open, at least for now.  Since they still haven't secured any funding, even bridge funding, I doubt anyone can feel completely secure yet about the period beyond next year.  With the college-age demographic set to drop over the next few years, they will continue to be vulnerable.

https://twitter.com/abc3340/status/1644010527880884232?s=20

Quote"The Board of Trustees has made the informed and thoughtful decision to keep Birmingham-Southern open," said the Rev. Keith D. Thompson '83, chair of the Board. "We have been working closely with our allies in state and local government to secure bridge funding."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on April 06, 2023, 01:17:11 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on April 05, 2023, 08:24:58 PM
So Tocaire will become four years?

Although it's basically a junior college, Trocaire already offers three highly-specific bachelors degrees. Merging in Medaille thus expands what was already a preexisting (though limited) bachelors menu at Trocaire.

One further bit about the merger: although Trocaire will continue Mavericks athletics, the sports of men's tennis, men's swimming & diving, and women's swimming & diving will be dropped. (https://www.wivb.com/news/education/colleges-universities-buffalo/three-medaille-sports-to-be-dropped-in-2023-24-season-after-integration-with-trocaire/)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on April 06, 2023, 01:26:03 PM
Anyone wanting to chat about the BSC situation should join us on the SAA Football board (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=7534.2835).  Today's announcement is remarkably short on details and in addition to Kuiper's observation on bridge funding shows almost no progress on the endowment front recently, as the school reported $45m months ago.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on May 05, 2023, 09:44:13 AM
The good folks at d3playbook.com let us know that a group called NACAC, the National Association for College Admission Counseling, publishes a voluntary list of colleges that still have openings (https://www.nacacnet.org/college-openings-update/?utm_source=www.d3playbook.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=baker-fired-up-as-ncaa-begins-third-party-review-of-operation) which is updated daily.  While the web site allows some filtering it's best to download a CSV and use your favorite spreadsheet or other tool if you want to really poke at the data.  Looking at private institutions you will unsurprisingly see a good number of D3 schools still looking for bodies, and in the public arena a few of the UW family are still open.  Of schools based in the US, there are a *lot* more private schools still open (193 as of this writing) than public (89), though schools must be members of the NACAC to participate.  There is a searchable directory here (https://hub.nacacnet.org/institutionmemberdirectory) if you want to see if a school is a member, though that doesn't guarantee participation in this particular program.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on May 13, 2023, 10:39:09 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on April 02, 2023, 08:15:01 PM
Article in the LA Times regarding struggles at Whittier, which has seen enrollment decline from roughly 1850 to 1200 since 2018.  Besides the numerical issues, there's apparently a leadership crisis.  Endowment for a school that size is actually decent ($120m).

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-30/whittier-college-hit-with-low-enrollment-financial-woes

One of the accompanying charts shows enrollment at La Verne with a similar percentage decline.

UPDATE:  Whittier College's President is stepping down

https://twitter.com/latsondheimer/status/1657368122289160192?s=20

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-12/whittier-college-president-resigns-amid-financial-troubles-plunging-enrollment

QuoteIn recent years, Whittier has seen enrollment plunge 35%, from 1,853 students in 2018 to about 1,200. The decreases have driven down annual revenue by 29% over roughly the same period, according to audited financial statements. In an effort to balance the books, the college last year cut football and three other sports programs and unveiled plans to sell the president's residence, Wardman House, a hilltop mansion with views to the ocean.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: D3Navy on May 13, 2023, 11:53:12 AM
Quote from: Kuiper on May 13, 2023, 10:39:09 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on April 02, 2023, 08:15:01 PM
Article in the LA Times regarding struggles at Whittier, which has seen enrollment decline from roughly 1850 to 1200 since 2018.  Besides the numerical issues, there's apparently a leadership crisis.  Endowment for a school that size is actually decent ($120m).

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-30/whittier-college-hit-with-low-enrollment-financial-woes

One of the accompanying charts shows enrollment at La Verne with a similar percentage decline.

UPDATE:  Whittier College's President is stepping down

https://twitter.com/latsondheimer/status/1657368122289160192?s=20

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-12/whittier-college-president-resigns-amid-financial-troubles-plunging-enrollment

QuoteIn recent years, Whittier has seen enrollment plunge 35%, from 1,853 students in 2018 to about 1,200. The decreases have driven down annual revenue by 29% over roughly the same period, according to audited financial statements. In an effort to balance the books, the college last year cut football and three other sports programs and unveiled plans to sell the president's residence, Wardman House, a hilltop mansion with views to the ocean.

It seems DEI initiatives, at the expense of sports, for example, have had a major impact on alumni support:

https://savewhittiercollege.com/home-2/letter-to-kenya-williams/statement-of-no-confidence-president-oubre/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on May 15, 2023, 04:01:55 PM
Another DIII institution has announced it's closing.  Medaille University in Buffalo, which is a member of the Empire 8 conference (and I believe the Allegehny Mountain Collegiate Conference), will close at the end of the summer.

https://www.wivb.com/news/education/colleges-universities-buffalo/medaille-university-to-close (https://www.wivb.com/news/education/colleges-universities-buffalo/medaille-university-to-close)-aug-31/

QuoteBUFFALO, N.Y. (WIVB) — Medaille University announced it will be closing this summer, following the termination of its integration deal with Trocaire College last week.

The official last date for the school will be Aug. 31.

Medaille cited "financial instability, declining enrollment, outstanding liabilities, and other challenges that are impacting institutions of higher education across the region, state and nationally" as its reasons for closing.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on May 15, 2023, 05:10:03 PM
Quote from: Kuiper on May 15, 2023, 04:01:55 PM
Another DIII institution has announced it's closing.  Medaille University in Buffalo, which is a member of the Empire 8 conference (and I believe the Allegehny Mountain Collegiate Conference), will close at the end of the summer.

https://www.wivb.com/news/education/colleges-universities-buffalo/medaille-university-to-close (https://www.wivb.com/news/education/colleges-universities-buffalo/medaille-university-to-close)-aug-31/

QuoteBUFFALO, N.Y. (WIVB) — Medaille University announced it will be closing this summer, following the termination of its integration deal with Trocaire College last week.

The official last date for the school will be Aug. 31.

Medaille cited "financial instability, declining enrollment, outstanding liabilities, and other challenges that are impacting institutions of higher education across the region, state and nationally" as its reasons for closing.

Once that merger fell through you knew this woud happen.  Probably Trocaire had a look at their financials once they got deep into discovery and said "no way we want any part of this mess."

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 05, 2023, 08:55:25 AM
If you want a post-mortem of how bad the situation was at Finlandia before they finally shut it down:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-college-that-mortgaged-everything

You'll have to sign up for a free account to read it, but man, it's hard to believe the school lasted as long as it did with the amount of financial mismanagement that went on over decades.  Makes you wonder how many other schools have similar issues under the cover just waiting to finally come to light.   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on June 05, 2023, 10:48:50 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 05, 2023, 08:55:25 AM
If you want a post-mortem of how bad the situation was at Finlandia before they finally shut it down:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-college-that-mortgaged-everything

You'll have to sign up for a free account to read it, but man, it's hard to believe the school lasted as long as it did with the amount of financial mismanagement that went on over decades.  Makes you wonder how many other schools have similar issues under the cover just waiting to finally come to light.   
Maybe Whittier can hire him.  He had god ideas, but his  hands were tied.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on June 23, 2023, 01:37:47 PM
Sad news out of the Atlantic East Conference.  Cabrini is being sold to Villanova.  This will be its last season of D3 sports.

https://d3sports.com/notables/2023/06/cabrini-university-to-be-sold

   
QuoteCabrini University is expected to be sold to Villanova University and will cease operating as a separate entity after the 2023-24 academic year and sports season, D3sports.com and Hoopsville have learned.

    This continues the trend of larger, Division I institutions, taking over Division III institutions in the same area and closing the smaller school. Cabrini and Villanova, two Catholic schools in the Philadelphia suburbs, sit less than 2 miles apart.

    The information was confirmed by multiple sources. The sources could not speak on the record because they are not currently authorized to speak publicly about the subject. An official announcement is expected once Villanova's full Board of Trustees votes. The plan has already been approved by a board committee.

    The sale comes as Cabrini has lost nearly half of its student population, especially in the graduate student population. The school had 1,235 full-time undergraduate students, 61 percent of them women, as of its most recent published filing with the U.S. Department, through the 2021-22 academic year.

UPDATE:  It's now official.  Here's the joint statement from Villanova and Cabrini

https://www1.villanova.edu/content/university/media/press-releases/2023/agreement.html

Of note, the agreement does not state that Cabrini students who will not graduate this next academic year will become Villanova students. Cabrini will assist students with transfer options, but this is a straight land/facility acquisition, not a real merger.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: kate on June 24, 2023, 08:12:24 AM
On this extremely sad topic of the closure of several Division 3 colleges and universities, i would beg all of us who love these schools deeply to make sure that they are ALL financially viable.   Please don't think it couldn't happen to my school because it is becoming more common place each month/year.   Support them however you can, monetarily of course, word of mouth, attending their functions and touting their graduates!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NJRoyal137 on June 25, 2023, 12:13:33 PM
I'm so curious about these mergers / acquisitions - can a public school absorb or merge with a private school and vice versa? What typically happens to the athletic dept. and alumni in these situations (esp. if it is between two D3 schools)?

I do wonder if we will continue to see more of this as enrollment continues to declines for private universities - could some of the major state schools purchase them enhance their local footprint and in other situations - convert more distant institutions into satellite schools? 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on June 25, 2023, 06:32:49 PM
Quote from: NJRoyal137 on June 25, 2023, 12:13:33 PM
I'm so curious about these mergers / acquisitions - can a public school absorb or merge with a private school and vice versa?

Delaware State just acquired Wesley College two years ago. The Wesley campus is now called DSU-Downtown.

Quote from: NJRoyal137 on June 25, 2023, 12:13:33 PMWhat typically happens to the athletic dept. and alumni in these situations (esp. if it is between two D3 schools)?

Depends upon the situation. Each instance is different.

Quote from: NJRoyal137 on June 25, 2023, 12:13:33 PM
I do wonder if we will continue to see more of this as enrollment continues to declines for private universities - could some of the major state schools purchase them enhance their local footprint and in other situations - convert more distant institutions into satellite schools?

It's entirely possible.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Shamrock on June 25, 2023, 07:21:13 PM
Quote from: kate on June 24, 2023, 08:12:24 AM
On this extremely sad topic of the closure of several Division 3 colleges and universities, i would beg all of us who love these schools deeply to make sure that they are ALL financially viable.   Please don't think it couldn't happen to my school because it is becoming more common place each month/year.   Support them however you can, monetarily of course, word of mouth, attending their functions and touting their graduates!

THIS!!!! 

Also, be an advocate for your school and for higher ed. generally.  Educate yourself on the debt load your alma mater's students graduate with and the placement rates of your institution.  You may be surprised at how well your alma mater stacks up!  Then, when you hear folks talking about how expensive it is and how fruitless it is you can talk about the real results coming out of your alma mater.

There are bad situations out there in terms of student debt load and student placement upon graduation, but those bad situations are by and large not taking place at D-3 schools.  But if folks don't know the truth about what takes place at an individual institution, the illusion becomes real and enrollment craters and schools close.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 28, 2023, 09:52:19 AM
Not only is it possible, we are pretty sure it will happen.

Someone I talked to in the process of Dave and I breaking the Cabrini story said there were a dozen similar conversations going on across the country, most involving a large school and a D-III school.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NJRoyal137 on June 28, 2023, 04:29:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 28, 2023, 09:52:19 AM
Not only is it possible, we are pretty sure it will happen.

Someone I talked to in the process of Dave and I breaking the Cabrini story said there were a dozen similar conversations going on across the country, most involving a large school and a D-III school.

Have you heard anything about Scranton? I feel like they are in a good spot but also have value.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 28, 2023, 05:22:20 PM
Quote from: NJRoyal137 on June 28, 2023, 04:29:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 28, 2023, 09:52:19 AM
Not only is it possible, we are pretty sure it will happen.

Someone I talked to in the process of Dave and I breaking the Cabrini story said there were a dozen similar conversations going on across the country, most involving a large school and a D-III school.

Have you heard anything about Scranton? I feel like they are in a good spot but also have value.

With a $275M endowment (as of a year ago) (https://www.scranton.edu/about/facts-about-us.shtml) they would not appear to be in any financial difficulty.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: NJRoyal137 on June 29, 2023, 10:00:37 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on June 28, 2023, 05:22:20 PM
Quote from: NJRoyal137 on June 28, 2023, 04:29:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 28, 2023, 09:52:19 AM
Not only is it possible, we are pretty sure it will happen.

Someone I talked to in the process of Dave and I breaking the Cabrini story said there were a dozen similar conversations going on across the country, most involving a large school and a D-III school.

Have you heard anything about Scranton? I feel like they are in a good spot but also have value.

With a $275M endowment (as of a year ago) (https://www.scranton.edu/about/facts-about-us.shtml) they would not appear to be in any financial difficulty.

Yeah, they are most likely OK - I do wonder if they would look to acquire some of the smaller local schools in order to grow their local footprint and increase enrollment. There are significant operating costs that come with that, however. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: kate on June 29, 2023, 02:55:12 PM
Pat & Dave, once the fall out from the covid pandemic is over, i bet that the smaller schools will regroup and regain any enrollment that they've lost.   There are so many advantages in attending a smaller school, and as much as say, i love Temple University, it's very true that it's a dangerous neighborhood there in Philly.   Having lived in Center City 50 years ago, i can say that it's been dangerous for a long time.   Fantastic school, no doubt.   Attending a smaller school in the suburbs offers the student the opportunity to come into town without the fear of living there.   Please don't go counting out ANY D3 schools - they all have wonderful and distinct personalities and offer just as much in the way of majors and opportunities to work while at school.   As a matter of fact, i wonder about a Penn State for example - they're opening up campuses in vacant strip malls (an exaggeration of course), but what's actually the point.   Just to say that one went to Penn State??????

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 29, 2023, 05:06:16 PM
Quote from: kate on June 29, 2023, 02:55:12 PM
Pat & Dave, once the fall out from the covid pandemic is over, i bet that the smaller schools will regroup and regain any enrollment that they've lost.

The birth rate has been steadily declining ever since 2008. Those kids are the ones of college age starting in just a couple of years -- there won't be more students, but fewer.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on June 29, 2023, 05:06:53 PM
Quote from: kate on June 29, 2023, 02:55:12 PM
Pat & Dave, once the fall out from the covid pandemic is over, i bet that the smaller schools will regroup and regain any enrollment that they've lost.   There are so many advantages in attending a smaller school, and as much as say, i love Temple University, it's very true that it's a dangerous neighborhood there in Philly.   Having lived in Center City 50 years ago, i can say that it's been dangerous for a long time.   Fantastic school, no doubt.   Attending a smaller school in the suburbs offers the student the opportunity to come into town without the fear of living there.   Please don't go counting out ANY D3 schools - they all have wonderful and distinct personalities and offer just as much in the way of majors and opportunities to work while at school.   As a matter of fact, i wonder about a Penn State for example - they're opening up campuses in vacant strip malls (an exaggeration of course), but what's actually the point.   Just to say that one went to Penn State??????

Demographics tell us there will not be as many prospective students with a "cliff" beginning as early as 2025, because families just started having fewer children around 20 years ago and the impact is now coming to the college-aged cohort.  Combine that with the increasing perception (true or not) that college educations are not as valuable / necessary as they once were and it's very hard to support your assertion, and that doesn't even consider that state schools that can offer basic tuition rates (often for in-state students) that can be an order of magnitude less than the "list price" at private schools.  The small private schools that have big endowments can offer huge tuition discounts (scholarships, grants, waivers, you name it) to the average student, but a lot of families won't even look at a school with a $50K+ list price.  Big schools also offer students that want the big school experience - including the spectacle of D1 sports - something they don't think they will find in small schools. 

I'm a *big* D3 / small-school proponent, but there are already dozens if not hundreds of schools facing serious financial challenges and absent a significant sudden influx of deep pocketed supporters and new students it is *very* hard to turn the situation around in the current climate. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: kate on June 29, 2023, 05:43:36 PM
Well, crazy me, we live in Easton, PA and we sit on the Delaware River right across from New Jersey.   We have an influx of population the likes of which i haven't seen since we've lived here.   We've been in this location for 48 years.   Perhaps these people aren't having children, that i don't know, but the population increase in palpable.   Yes, a school's endowment plays a huge part in the process of admitting good, solid students who wouldn't stand a chance of a college education even if they worked all through school.   I'm not at all privy to my favorite school's finances, but they are in an outstanding location (Central Buck's County) & have properties in Montgomery County i believe.   They have often been touted as an extremely safe school.   As for sports, watching some of these Division 1 schools, especially women's basketball, it seems more and more like a racket.   These kids transfer on a whim (some as many as four times), and i think to myself that that's no way to conduct a college program.   I prefer a local well-loved small school that builds a fan base one game at a time, and we're assured of knowing our players.   Of course they won't go pro, but have outstanding memories of their college games knowing that they playing not only for themselves, but their devoted fan base and the glory of their smaller school.   
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: doolittledog on June 29, 2023, 05:44:14 PM
Here is a story about how the USDA has loaned a number of small colleges money and issues smaller schools are facing at the moment.

https://www.kmaland.com/news/feds-call-loan-rural-iowa-university-shutters/article_745de0fe-1120-11ee-9332-dbff1d28640e.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on June 29, 2023, 07:42:00 PM
Another article on the subject:

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23428166/college-enrollment-population-education-crash
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: kate on June 30, 2023, 07:55:00 AM
Doolittledog, thank you so very much for a very informative article.   My heart broke thinking about any middle of the country college or university that affords their community with concerts and other cultural activities having to close.   I just can not emphasize enough for anyone who has a student at any of the endangered schools, or who has enjoyed any activity at their near-by college to Please, keep up your participation.   Whatever it might be, money, attendance at All said school's events, cultural or sport's related, and talking up that school.   Said on here before that every school has a distinct personality & offers specialty programs and events - an example, A-Day at Del Val in Doylestown that has morphed over the years to a country fair.  The 3-day weekend features everything that school has to offer and more with an open house for their farm on campus!   Hold tight to whatever is the Best aspect of your school and promote, promote, PROMOTE!!!   Give whatever you can!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 30, 2023, 11:05:04 AM
Pennsylvania and New Jersey are among the states with the highest numbers of departing residents, according to annual end-of-year reports.

A report conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau ranked Pennsylvania sixth in numeric population decline between 2020 and 2021, with a loss of 25,569 people. New Jersey ranked ninth, with a loss of 12,613 people.

https://www.phillyvoice.com/pennsylvania-population-loss-new-jersey-uhaul-census/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: kate on June 30, 2023, 02:10:30 PM
Pat, of course stats don't lie, but in our quarter of Pennsylvania, that population is definitely on the rise.   Sadly maybe farmers in the middle of the state are throwing in the towel and selling their farms.   I honestly don't know the make-up of our influx and most of them are apartment dwellers.   Based on the needs of the economy, nursing would be an ideal addition to the Del Val offerings.   Male & female of course.   There is a large hospital directly across the road from the school.   Again, my heart goes out to the small schools in the midwest, where as i was thinking this morning, they even have to travel greater distances to get to opponents for all their sports.   We are so fortunate here in eastern PA as we have a multitude of d3 schools within a two-hour trip.   As much as i will miss going to beautiful Lycoming, it was a haul to get there, especially in the winter.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on June 30, 2023, 04:46:02 PM
Quote from: kate on June 30, 2023, 02:10:30 PM
Pat, of course stats don't lie, but in our quarter of Pennsylvania, that population is definitely on the rise.   Sadly maybe farmers in the middle of the state are throwing in the towel and selling their farms.   I honestly don't know the make-up of our influx and most of them are apartment dwellers.   Based on the needs of the economy, nursing would be an ideal addition to the Del Val offerings.   Male & female of course.   There is a large hospital directly across the road from the school.   Again, my heart goes out to the small schools in the midwest, where as i was thinking this morning, they even have to travel greater distances to get to opponents for all their sports.   We are so fortunate here in eastern PA as we have a multitude of d3 schools within a two-hour trip.   As much as i will miss going to beautiful Lycoming, it was a haul to get there, especially in the winter.
We have been short on nurses for over 35 years.  The shortage begins with nursing instructors.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on July 14, 2023, 12:28:34 PM
I thought this portion of the D3 Playbook column on "Conference Stability" was interesting perspective for those who see recent changes as alarming.

https://www.d3playbook.com/p/conference-stability

Quote1. Conference Stability

Ever wonder about the stability of the core membership of Division III conferences? Now that July 1 has come and gone and schools have moved from one league to another for a variety of reasons, that got us thinking about conferences that have remained essentially intact over the decades ... and others that have not.

Today, we begin a multi-part series on DIII conferences - when they were founded, who were the charter members, and what additions or defections they have seen since their inception.

Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference. The AMCC began play in 1997-98 with six members - La Roche, Penn State Behrend, Pitt-Bradford, Pitt-Greensburg, Frostburg State (left 2010), and Lake Erie (left 2008).

Added to Core: PSU Altoona (1998), Hilbert (2005), Mount Aloysius (2006), Alfred State (2019), Carlow (2023), Wells (2023)

Come and Gone: Medaille (2005-2022), Franciscan (2008-2020), D'Youville (2009-2020)

American Rivers Conference. The Conference dates to December 8, 1922 with charter members Buena Vista, Central, Des Moines, Ellsworth, Iowa Wesleyan, Luther, Morningside, Parsons, St. Ambrose, Simpson, Upper Iowa, Western Union and William Penn. Reorganized in 1954-55 with Buena Vista, Central, Dubuque (added 1929), Iowa Wesleyan (left 1965), Luther, Parsons (left 1963), Simpson, Upper Iowa (left 2003) and Wartburg (added 1936).

Added: Loras (1926-54, returned 1986), Dubuque (1929), Wartburg (1936), Coe (1997), Nebraska Wesleyan (2016)

Come and Gone: William Penn (1922-54, 1962-2001), Cornell (1997-2012)

Atlantic East Conference. The founding member schools that joined the conference in September of 2018 included Cabrini (closing 2024), Gwynedd Mercy, Immaculata, Marymount, Marywood, Neumann and Wesley (closed 2021).

Added: Centenary (2021)

American Southwest Conference. The conference was founded on May 23, 1996 with Austin (left 2006), University of Dallas (left 2001), Hardin-Simmons, Howard Payne, McMurry (left 2012, rejoins 2014), Mississippi College (left 2014), University of the Ozarks (leaving 2024) and Sul Ross State as members.

Added: Mary Hardin-Baylor (1997), East Texas Baptist (1998), LeTourneau (1998), Texas-Dallas (1998), Concordia (1999, leaving 2024)

Come and Gone: Schreiner (1998-2013), Louisiana College (1999-2021), Texas Lutheran (2000-13), Texas-Tyler (2002-19), Centenary (2011-12), Belhaven (2015-22)

Coast-to-Coast Conference. The C2C was originally constituted as the Capital Athletic Conference in 1989 with charter members including Catholic (left 2007), Gallaudet (left 2010), Mary Washington, Marymount (left 2018), St. Mary's Md. (left 2021), and York, Pa. (left 2020). The CAC officially evolved into the C2C on November 18, 2020, and invited UC-Santa Cruz, Finlandia (closed 2023), Mills (left 2022), Mount Mary, Pine Manor (left 2021) and Pratt Institute (leaving 2024).

Added: Salisbury (1991-92), Christopher Newport (2013), Warren Wilson (2022)

Come and Gone: Goucher (1993-2007), Hood (2007-12), Stevenson (2007-12), Wesley (2007-18), Frostburg State (2010-19), Penn State Harrisburg (2013-19), Southern Virginia (2013-21).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on July 14, 2023, 01:25:24 PM
Suprisingly, they missed Sul Ross on its way out of the American Southwest (this is their final year as they transit to D2) along with McMurry (leaving for the SCAC in 2024).  And there is a *great* deal of reliable chatter saying Texas-Dallas will be the next to take the D2 route. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 14, 2023, 10:26:48 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 14, 2023, 01:25:24 PM
Suprisingly, they missed Sul Ross on its way out of the American Southwest (this is their final year as they transit to D2) along with McMurry (leaving for the SCAC in 2024).  And there is a *great* deal of reliable chatter saying Texas-Dallas will be the next to take the D2 route.

That wasn't approved until today. The article was correct when published.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: SagatagSam on July 19, 2023, 01:06:19 PM
Not only do we have the 2026 enrollment cliff, but the birthrate has continued to slow.

I saw this and thought it would be relevant to the future of D3 looking out at a timeline over the next 1-2 decades. We could be going from a bad situation in 2026 to an even worse one by the mid-2030s. Have a look at the states that are seeing precipitous drops in children ages 0-4. If I were a college administrator in the states that had 5%+ declines in young children, I would be very worried about survival. Factor in that unless you are a college with a national brand, you probably aren't pulling a meaningful percentage of your students from out of state. According to a study out of the University of Wisconsin the majority of students go to college within 50 miles of where they grew up: "At public four-year colleges, the median distance students live from home is 18 miles. That number is 46 miles for private nonprofit four-year colleges, and only eight miles at public two-year colleges."

(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F031019f2-eb52-44d1-9822-52676be54b39_936x660.png)

Source: https://natpop.substack.com/p/where-did-all-the-children-go?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/03/when-students-enroll-college-geography-matters-more-policy-makers-think
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: kate on July 19, 2023, 05:55:52 PM
Good grief, sports aside for a minute, the closing of our tremendous small colleges and universities will lead to an even worse dumbing down of the American society.   It's bad enough right now with insanely ridiculous tv shows and some movies, people not voting, and people not keeping up with the news.   Seriously, if everyone is hoarded into a gigantic state school, for intellect and sports, it could be a nightmare to our existence.   Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: SagatagSam on July 20, 2023, 10:00:48 AM
Quote from: kate on July 19, 2023, 05:55:52 PM
Good grief, sports aside for a minute, the closing of our tremendous small colleges and universities will lead to an even worse dumbing down of the American society.   It's bad enough right now with insanely ridiculous tv shows and some movies, people not voting, and people not keeping up with the news.   Seriously, if everyone is hoarded into a gigantic state school, for intellect and sports, it could be a nightmare to our existence.   Just my opinion.

They aren't hoarding into the gigantic state schools either. There are a ton of students that see little value in going $30,000+ in debt only to not find a job that justifies the expense. As a result they are skipping college all together.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on July 20, 2023, 11:16:53 AM
I'm a big believer higher education needs a massive makeover.

First, state schools need to be funded by the state with the... requirement... that they serve in-state students. This means they go back to being truly inexpensive because taxpayers are willing to recognize the need and benefit for an educated cohort of society. Drop the debt load significantly, 90% of costs covered, but raise admission standards by lowering acceptances at these schools. Slots should be available for the top 20-25% of h.s. graduates in any state. For perspective, that's about 50K slots per year in New York across all state schools for 4 years.

If you are in a state that doesn't value education (and yes, I live in AL so we would have to move), your state schools are probably going to be underfunded. Huge classrooms, mediocre education. Vote for someone better, or move. But you can't go to a state school out of state. What the heck is the purpose of a state school that mostly serves out of state students.... looking at you University of Roll Tide and the 68% out of state undergraduate enrollment.

Second, if you don't have the h.s. qualifications, anyone top 50% of their state h.s. class can go to a JUCO for a few years, also 90% covered. Any student with a 3.0 or better in a JUCO degree can go to a state school if they want to finish a 4yr degree. Same 90% paid for status. Students have some skin in the game, have legitimate known requirements, and can receive an education even if you are a late bloomer so long as you are willing to put in the work. Anyone below the top 50% of your class... well, only about 62% of h.s. graduates go to college anyway.

If you can't get in the top 50% of your state... you are going to have to find another way. For example, anyone with 2yrs of public service (military) and a recommendation or 2yrs of government approved service (Peace Corps for one possible example) can go to the JUCO program if they didn't qualify after h.s.

Third, if you don't finish your degree, either JUCO or 4 year, you have to pay back a percentage of the benefit you received. 15% in year one, not much if you recognize early college is not for you, 30% in year two, 50% in year three. Again, skin in the game. Finish your darn degree. If you drop out after year 1, it won't be that much, but if you drop 3 years in, that needs to be... discouraged.

Fourth, state schools focus on vocational degrees. Engineering, computer science, business, the hard sciences, healthcare. There are dozens more, but if you want to focus on theology, ancient Greek, history, etc... then you will need to pay for it (see Private Schools).

Fifth, private schools are more market based, let that continue. Maybe they cater to that lower 50%, maybe they offer an education radically better than the state schools and are worth the money. Maybe they offer degrees that state schools don't (liberal arts). Maybe they offer sports that the state schools don't. Lots of ways to differentiate, but probably nowhere near enough to keep all these hundreds upon hundreds of schools. If they can survive, and I suspect many won't, then they add to the market.

Finally, the job market needs to change. So many jobs require a college degree for a job that doesn't need a college degree. They do it because we have so many college graduates, not because it actually adds to anything. Reset those expectations and qualifications and fewer students will feel the need to go to college. Follow a pattern similar to what I laid out above, and people most likely to benefit from college won't come out with crippling debt loads. Obviously this is just a sketch outline that has massive holes that need cleaning up, but short of going away from traditional college experiences, this makes the most sense to me.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 20, 2023, 02:07:47 PM

I live in a state where we don't have enough students to fill our schools.  We have to have out of state students.  Our lawmakers complain the University of Delaware won't accept enough local kids and the response has always been: prepare them better and we'll take them all.

This is a bit of a unique situation, though, because while UD gets some state money, it's technically a private college.  When they did the land grant thing way back when, UD already existed and we didn't need another college, so they just gave them the money and the Governor gets to appoint one third of the board.  Del State is an HBCU and a great school, but we don't have the local population to support its size, either - white Delawareans who attend get automatic "minority student" scholarships to try and keep the local numbers up.

I tend to think the Community College system should be the default education pathway for most states (it definitely is here).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on July 20, 2023, 03:27:15 PM
Around 1960, California came up with a plan for the UC's, State Colleges (now called Cal State xxx... etc), and JC's.  The JC's were intended to be a transition to four year schools for those who needed to go this route.  They also set up State Scholarships  to help students going to private schools in the state.  That is how I attended.  They were slightly less than the state was spending per student for students going to UCLA, for example.  In  those days, it cost a student $60 a semester for tuition at UCLA. The state picked up the rest.

It was called the  California Master Plan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_Higher_Education
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: SagatagSam on July 20, 2023, 05:02:20 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on July 20, 2023, 02:07:47 PM

I live in a state where we don't have enough students to fill our schools.  We have to have out of state students.  Our lawmakers complain the University of Delaware won't accept enough local kids and the response has always been: prepare them better and we'll take them all.

This is a bit of a unique situation, though, because while UD gets some state money, it's technically a private college.  When they did the land grant thing way back when, UD already existed and we didn't need another college, so they just gave them the money and the Governor gets to appoint one third of the board.  Del State is an HBCU and a great school, but we don't have the local population to support its size, either - white Delawareans who attend get automatic "minority student" scholarships to try and keep the local numbers up.

I tend to think the Community College system should be the default education pathway for most states (it definitely is here).

Delaware is not alone.

Where I grew up, the Minnesota State Colleges & Universities ("MnSCU") system has seen devastating enrollment drops--St. Cloud State University (D2) has dropped about 45% over the past decade (from nearly 20,000 students to barely above 10,000). Several other schools in the system have dropped 10-25% over the same period. The system as a whole as dropped over 20%. And that's all in advance of the 2026 enrollment cliff.

Based on what I have seen and heard from people who know a lot more about higher ed than I do, I am expecting a ton of schools (and not just D3 schools) closing/merging nationwide, with particularly high concentrations of those schools being located in the northeast.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on July 21, 2023, 04:29:14 PM
Lasell University, of the GNAC, appears to be in trouble.  A plan to cut History, English, sociology, and a few other departments and cut faculty.  At this point, the sports program may be propping up the rest of the university in terms of attracting students, but we'll see how long that lasts. 

https://twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/1682337335751462912?s=20

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/07/20/metro/facing-financial-woes-lasell-university-plans-cut-humanities-majors-lay-off-faculty/

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on July 21, 2023, 05:58:53 PM
Quote from: Kuiper on July 21, 2023, 04:29:14 PM
Lasell University, of the GNAC, appears to be in trouble.  A plan to cut History, English, sociology, and a few other departments and cut faculty.  At this point, the sports program may be propping up the rest of the university in terms of attracting students, but we'll see how long that lasts. 

https://twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/1682337335751462912?s=20

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/07/20/metro/facing-financial-woes-lasell-university-plans-cut-humanities-majors-lay-off-faculty/
From one of the letters at the bottom of the Globe article: "None of the umpires who worked their softball games got paid this Spring. The Athletic Director should be held to account for this as well as the Trustees."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on August 03, 2023, 10:26:15 AM
Here's a little less gloomy post about the future of Division III.  August 6th is the 50th anniversary of the creation of DIII.  I wish it had more of a presence in the western half of the country, and it certainly has all the challenges faced by small colleges generally right now, but it's still the largest NCAA division and this is a significant milestone.  I'm also optimistic that DIII may actually become the model for NCAA sports going forward in a world where college athletics may divide between those that fully embrace it as a business, establishing employer-employee relationships for athletes and breaking off from the NCAA, and those that can no longer justify or finance the extensive travel, athletics scholarships, or special treatment without the Power 5 football/basketball money in the system.  That doesn't necessarily mean many of those latter schools would move to DIII, but the transition of the University of Hartford from DI to DIII this year could be a harbinger of things to come.

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/4/17/media-center-diii-unveils-50th-anniversary-logo-and-celebration.aspx


Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gregory Sager on August 03, 2023, 11:11:16 AM
It's interesting that the NCAA article about D3's fiftieth anniversary spotlights the division's massive expansion over that half-century while also mentioning the first national title won on the D3 level, as Ashland took home the Walnut and Bronze from the men's cross-country championship in the fall of 1973. Ashland is an example of the constant attrition to the scholarship ranks that all of that D3 expansion has had to overcome; the Eagles moved from D3 to D2 in 1979.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: SagatagSam on August 03, 2023, 11:31:53 AM
Quote from: Kuiper on August 03, 2023, 10:26:15 AM
Here's a little less gloomy post about the future of Division III.  August 6th is the 50th anniversary of the creation of DIII.  I wish it had more of a presence in the western half of the country, and it certainly has all the challenges faced by small colleges generally right now, but it's still the largest NCAA division and this is a significant milestone.  I'm also optimistic that DIII may actually become the model for NCAA sports going forward in a world where college athletics may divide between those that fully embrace it as a business, establishing employer-employee relationships for athletes and breaking off from the NCAA, and those that can no longer justify or finance the extensive travel, athletics scholarships, or special treatment without the Power 5 football/basketball money in the system.  That doesn't necessarily mean many of those latter schools would move to DIII, but the transition of the University of Hartford from DI to DIII this year could be a harbinger of things to come.

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/4/17/media-center-diii-unveils-50th-anniversary-logo-and-celebration.aspx

Any idea where UHart will end up in terms of conference? I'm a MIAC guy and this is all brand new news to me.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on August 03, 2023, 11:49:05 AM
They have the Commonwealth Coast Conference and ECAC listed on their website.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on August 03, 2023, 01:03:12 PM

Yeah, they're taking Salve's place in the CCC.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on August 04, 2023, 08:40:33 AM
Whoa.  Huge cuts coming at UW-Oshkosh and elsewhere in the UW system.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/education/2023/08/03/uw-oshkosh-plans-layoffs-furloughs-due-to-18-million-deficit/70521062007/

QuoteUW-Oshkosh plans to cut about 200 non-faculty staff and administrators this fall, while furloughing others, UW-Oshkosh Chancellor Andrew Leavitt said Thursday, as the university faces an unprecedented $18 million budget shortfall. The cuts amount to about 20% of university employees.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2023, 02:40:52 PM
I saw the link to this article in the Washington Examiner at D3playbook.com (to which I pay a yearly subscription.)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/ncaa-president-testifies-senate-nil-sports-concerns

Yes, I might concede that D-2 schools might forego money-losing athletics without an NIL law, but how many D3 schools (beyond a small handful) would give up athletics in a new NIL-driven world?

I just don't believe NCAA President Baker about D3. In,fact, I think that D3 becomes the preferred model.

Please comment.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 18, 2023, 03:04:34 PM
If athletes are classified as employees at the D2 and D3 level? That's the context.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 18, 2023, 04:32:09 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 18, 2023, 03:04:34 PM
If athletes are classified as employees at the D2 and D3 level? That's the context.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 20, 2023, 05:18:02 PM
High school graduation projections by state.

https://source.cognia.org/issue-article/high-school-graduation-trends-in-the-years-ahead/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Oline89 on October 21, 2023, 07:52:31 AM
  NIL money and the transfer portal have created a fascinating crossroads for big time college football.  Would the University of CO actually be a contender without these new rules? In one way it is great for athletes (I refuse to us the term student-athletes anymore) who generate millions of dollars for their school, and respective conference, to tap into that lucrative revunue stream.  In another way, are we just going to generate even younger, wealthy athletes with misguided outlooks of the real world.  Regarding D3, the last bastion of the student athlete, I doubt anything changes for 99.2% of schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Etchglow on October 21, 2023, 09:58:09 AM
Honestly, I think that all the money is a slippery slope. Only a handful of sports actually generate money, and those typically fund the other sports. If that revenue has to be disbursed you can say goodbye to most everything that isn't football/basketball, much less sports at the lower levels.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: mhm0417 on October 22, 2023, 10:22:47 AM
Quote from: Etchglow on October 21, 2023, 09:58:09 AM
Honestly, I think that all the money is a slippery slope. Only a handful of sports actually generate money, and those typically fund the other sports. If that revenue has to be disbursed you can say goodbye to most everything that isn't football/basketball, much less sports at the lower levels.

Agreed and I would take it a step further and say D III is in big trouble 10-15 years from now.  I'm in northern NY state - very rural.  The schools here are all D3 (except for a couple hockey programs).  No one goes to the games , the teams lose in pretty much every sport and the schools athletic departments operate in a deficit every year.  I don't see how the sports programs are sustainable.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on October 22, 2023, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: mhm0417 on October 22, 2023, 10:22:47 AM
Quote from: Etchglow on October 21, 2023, 09:58:09 AM
Honestly, I think that all the money is a slippery slope. Only a handful of sports actually generate money, and those typically fund the other sports. If that revenue has to be disbursed you can say goodbye to most everything that isn't football/basketball, much less sports at the lower levels.

Agreed and I would take it a step further and say D III is in big trouble 10-15 years from now.  I'm in northern NY state - very rural.  The schools here are all D3 (except for a couple hockey programs).  No one goes to the games , the teams lose in pretty much every sport and the schools athletic departments operate in a deficit every year.  I don't see how the sports programs are sustainable.

How much tuition do these schools lose if they don't offer 1000 athletic spots and other schools do? D3 doesn't make money on tickets, it makes money on tuition of student athletes. So long as students want to play and make finding a school with their sport a priority, athletic departments make sense.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Etchglow on October 22, 2023, 02:00:54 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2023, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: mhm0417 on October 22, 2023, 10:22:47 AM
Quote from: Etchglow on October 21, 2023, 09:58:09 AM
Honestly, I think that all the money is a slippery slope. Only a handful of sports actually generate money, and those typically fund the other sports. If that revenue has to be disbursed you can say goodbye to most everything that isn't football/basketball, much less sports at the lower levels.

Agreed and I would take it a step further and say D III is in big trouble 10-15 years from now.  I'm in northern NY state - very rural.  The schools here are all D3 (except for a couple hockey programs).  No one goes to the games , the teams lose in pretty much every sport and the schools athletic departments operate in a deficit every year.  I don't see how the sports programs are sustainable.

How much tuition do these schools lose if they don't offer 1000 athletic spots and other schools do? D3 doesn't make money on tickets, it makes money on tuition of student athletes. So long as students want to play and make finding a school with their sport a priority, athletic departments make sense.

I don't know, but I just don't think a lot of institutions will want to make up the difference that the NCAA is paying.  Yeah, 32 million for championships split across all 400+ members of D3 isn't that much... But are all the schools going to want to pay?  Also, maybe I'm biased by being an Island school, but when you factor in the costs of travel and such, you have to wonder if some of these smaller institutions are actually bringing in more revenue than they spend on sports teams. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on October 22, 2023, 02:50:58 PM
Quote from: Etchglow on October 22, 2023, 02:00:54 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2023, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: mhm0417 on October 22, 2023, 10:22:47 AM
Quote from: Etchglow on October 21, 2023, 09:58:09 AM
Honestly, I think that all the money is a slippery slope. Only a handful of sports actually generate money, and those typically fund the other sports. If that revenue has to be disbursed you can say goodbye to most everything that isn't football/basketball, much less sports at the lower levels.

Agreed and I would take it a step further and say D III is in big trouble 10-15 years from now.  I'm in northern NY state - very rural.  The schools here are all D3 (except for a couple hockey programs).  No one goes to the games , the teams lose in pretty much every sport and the schools athletic departments operate in a deficit every year.  I don't see how the sports programs are sustainable.

How much tuition do these schools lose if they don't offer 1000 athletic spots and other schools do? D3 doesn't make money on tickets, it makes money on tuition of student athletes. So long as students want to play and make finding a school with their sport a priority, athletic departments make sense.

I don't know, but I just don't think a lot of institutions will want to make up the difference that the NCAA is paying.  Yeah, 32 million for championships split across all 400+ members of D3 isn't that much... But are all the schools going to want to pay?  Also, maybe I'm biased by being an Island school, but when you factor in the costs of travel and such, you have to wonder if some of these smaller institutions are actually bringing in more revenue than they spend on sports teams.

Oh. Sure. Free national championship tournaments are in big trouble. But D3 sports at the conference and regional level will be just fine.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on October 22, 2023, 07:25:55 PM
I figured it out a year or two ago, but the NCAA is saving d3 schools roughly $80,000 a year, assuming the spending would be the same.  Now, if d3 had to self fund, there'd be a lot of changes to how that's done, but it gives a baseline.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on October 24, 2023, 08:35:46 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2023, 02:50:58 PM
Quote from: Etchglow on October 22, 2023, 02:00:54 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2023, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: mhm0417 on October 22, 2023, 10:22:47 AM
Quote from: Etchglow on October 21, 2023, 09:58:09 AM
Honestly, I think that all the money is a slippery slope. Only a handful of sports actually generate money, and those typically fund the other sports. If that revenue has to be disbursed you can say goodbye to most everything that isn't football/basketball, much less sports at the lower levels.

Agreed and I would take it a step further and say D III is in big trouble 10-15 years from now.  I'm in northern NY state - very rural.  The schools here are all D3 (except for a couple hockey programs).  No one goes to the games , the teams lose in pretty much every sport and the schools athletic departments operate in a deficit every year.  I don't see how the sports programs are sustainable.

How much tuition do these schools lose if they don't offer 1000 athletic spots and other schools do? D3 doesn't make money on tickets, it makes money on tuition of student athletes. So long as students want to play and make finding a school with their sport a priority, athletic departments make sense.

I don't know, but I just don't think a lot of institutions will want to make up the difference that the NCAA is paying.  Yeah, 32 million for championships split across all 400+ members of D3 isn't that much... But are all the schools going to want to pay?  Also, maybe I'm biased by being an Island school, but when you factor in the costs of travel and such, you have to wonder if some of these smaller institutions are actually bringing in more revenue than they spend on sports teams.

Oh. Sure. Free national championship tournaments are in big trouble. But D3 sports at the conference and regional level will be just fine.

Exactly.  Frankly, the NCAA championships in D3, especially with the emphasis in a sport like soccer on strength of schedule and RvR wins, pushes teams to seek competition against better teams as an insurance against not winning their league and getting the automatic bid.  Moreover, the minimum team numbers for a conference to get an automatic bid, lead teams to join leagues with schools that are far away (the Coast-to-Coast Conference is the extreme example of that).  If you eliminate the national tournament and return the focus to the conference championship, you reduce a lot of travel costs.  The benefit for tuition and enrollment in a period of declining demographics for students, plus the draw for male students (who tend to prefer schools that offer robust varsity sports even if they don't play) and the benefit for alumni giving and engagement, would definitely justify the continued costs of sponsoring teams. 

Nevertheless, I don't think NCAA championships would go away even if schools/conferences had to contribute to organize it and then pay to attend.  One of the big costs is the travel subsidy and the NCAA (or whoever organized the championship) could simply ask schools in contention for selection whether they were interested in attending and willing to bear the costs if selected before they finalized the brackets.  Schools could either budget for that or could ask for pledges from alums if their team made it.  Plus, they could hit up the parents.  After all, many schools already ask the kids to pay for team swag and other costs.  For many kids who come from elite youth programs, they're used to paying for travel etc.  And for schools that don't want to participate, they wouldn't have to.  The hardest hit would be the schools out West, but they are also the schools most used to the travel cost issue from just playing regular season games.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 25, 2023, 09:46:29 AM
Shifting championship travel costs to the schools would really impact the island schools who are already at a disadvantage due to all the extra travel imposed on them to satisfy the NCAA 500-mile rule.  Making them foot the bill to travel to a school who only is hosting because other competitors can bus there (at a much lower cost) would rub salt in those wounds, and a lot of schools don't have either the financial base or support from parents/boosters to cover the cost.

Imagine this:  you're recruiting from an island school.  Other schools can say "hey, if you go to [xxxx] and make the playoffs, your parents are going to have to come up with a thousand bucks or more every round because you'll have to fly."  And you know that will happen should the NCAA no longer be able to cover costs.   The alternative would be days long bus or train travel.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on October 25, 2023, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 25, 2023, 09:46:29 AM
Shifting championship travel costs to the schools would really impact the island schools who are already at a disadvantage due to all the extra travel imposed on them to satisfy the NCAA 500-mile rule.  Making them foot the bill to travel to a school who only is hosting because other competitors can bus there (at a much lower cost) would rub salt in those wounds, and a lot of schools don't have either the financial base or support from parents/boosters to cover the cost.

Imagine this:  you're recruiting from an island school.  Other schools can say "hey, if you go to [xxxx] and make the playoffs, your parents are going to have to come up with a thousand bucks or more every round because you'll have to fly."  And you know that will happen should the NCAA no longer be able to cover costs.   The alternative would be days long bus or train travel.

As someone from one of those "island" areas in D3, I agree about the inequities of the situation, but I'm just saying that this is what would happen rather than doing away with the championships altogether.  There might be some sponsorships and media rights to defray expenses for those most extreme travel situations, but that wouldn't help much.  You might see fewer island schools do pre-conference trips to other areas of the country as a result, with schools choosing instead save that travel money for a possible NCAA run.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: IC798891 on October 27, 2023, 01:34:58 PM
Quote from: mhm0417 on October 22, 2023, 10:22:47 AM
Quote from: Etchglow on October 21, 2023, 09:58:09 AM
Honestly, I think that all the money is a slippery slope. Only a handful of sports actually generate money, and those typically fund the other sports. If that revenue has to be disbursed you can say goodbye to most everything that isn't football/basketball, much less sports at the lower levels.

Agreed and I would take it a step further and say D III is in big trouble 10-15 years from now.  I'm in northern NY state - very rural.  The schools here are all D3 (except for a couple hockey programs).  No one goes to the games , the teams lose in pretty much every sport and the schools athletic departments operate in a deficit every year.  I don't see how the sports programs are sustainable.

Per their quick facts, Hartwick had 472 male undergraduate students in the Fall of 2021, and 90 football players. That means almost 20% of their male students were football players.

I work for an upstate NY D3 school, though nowhere near as small as Hartwick. We had a meeting with our AD, who told us that:

The yield rate for student athletes was roughly three times what it is for non-student athletes
The graduation rate was higher than that of non student athletes as well.

That's where the money comes in for athletics. They are absolutely critical for enrollment, and in upstate NY, enrollment is the name of the game.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on November 14, 2023, 12:53:59 PM
There's a great episode of the All Things DIII Soccer podcast, with Simple Coach interviewing Adrian College president Jeffrey Docking, author of the book The College of the Future.  He's not an uncontroversial figure, but that's mostly related to his plans for shared online courses (involving a for-profit company that he has a connection to) and not because of his work in expanding college sports teams.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fucnBDA0Fg

I think we all know by now that D3 schools (as well as small schools generally, whether JCs, NAIA, DII etc), are using athletics to help drive enrollment and save schools, but Docking started this back in 2005 and he openly embraces the strategy and its clear connection to admissions goals and quotas for coaches.  The most interesting revelation from the interview is his claim this isn't a situation where the sports gambit is no longer working because all DIII schools are doing it now.  According to Docking, it's being used to compete with the big publics for a few more students.  As he said, 85% of students are going to the big public universities in his state of Michigan (or maybe that was the national number).  If only a small fraction of that number go to DIII schools instead because of athletics, and he can get maybe a couple of dozen of them to go to Adrian, that's a massive difference to their bottom line over four years.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Gray Fox on December 01, 2023, 12:03:32 PM
http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4409.18405#msg2100410

Fontbonne in serious trouble.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on December 05, 2023, 10:20:16 AM
New NCAA proposal to allow high revenue schools to split off into a separate subdivision that allows them to pay players through a trust fund as long as they comply with Title IX and pay women too.

https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-proposing-new-college-athletics-subdivision-rooted-in-direct-athlete-compensation-145051537.html

Given the magnitude of payments required to pay half of athletes $30K minimum, those schools could insist on higher shares of revenue that might normally be available for DIII
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 05, 2023, 02:11:15 PM
Quote from: Kuiper on December 05, 2023, 10:20:16 AM
New NCAA proposal to allow high revenue schools to split off into a separate subdivision that allows them to pay players through a trust fund as long as they comply with Title IX and pay women too.

https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-proposing-new-college-athletics-subdivision-rooted-in-direct-athlete-compensation-145051537.html

Given the magnitude of payments required to pay half of athletes $30K minimum, those schools could insist on higher shares of revenue that might normally be available for DIII

FTA...

Quote• 98 percent of DII and DIII schools spend less than $20 million annually on their athletic programs.

Why doesn't D-III just go with pure amateur athletics?

What are the legal constraints on no NILs for D-3 athletes across the division? If a player wanted NILs why not go D-2?

The resources for a Trinity or Southwestern or Colorado College are different from the rest of the SCAC and ASC schools.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on December 14, 2023, 03:15:43 PM
Here is a very good article about the economics of small colleges. It's very balanced, with lots of input from various colleges and universities that show up on the matrix. And there are a lot of D3 schools on that matrix. I do think it's a high level look that limited itself to 5 important but not all-important factors, so there are some factors that I believe should be a part of the debate, but it's still a good look at the challenges ahead for a very large part of the D3 universe.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-us-higher-education-analysis/#:~:text=Bloomberg%20News%20consulted%20six%20experts,aid%20and%20persistent%20operating%20losses.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-us-higher-education-analysis/?utm_source=website&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=copy
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 19, 2023, 09:20:03 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 14, 2023, 03:15:43 PM
Here is a very good article about the economics of small colleges. It's very balanced, with lots of input from various colleges and universities that show up on the matrix. And there are a lot of D3 schools on that matrix. I do think it's a high level look that limited itself to 5 important but not all-important factors, so there are some factors that I believe should be a part of the debate, but it's still a good look at the challenges ahead for a very large part of the D3 universe.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-us-higher-education-analysis/#:~:text=Bloomberg%20News%20consulted%20six%20experts,aid%20and%20persistent%20operating%20losses.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-us-higher-education-analysis/?utm_source=website&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=copy
Great article, jknezek.

You will be amazed at the D-3 universities that have at least 3 of the 5 stressors to which the author refers.

Scroll down in the article to find the schools which have the most stressors!
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on December 20, 2023, 09:54:04 AM
One thing about the "stressors" this study employs is that they ignore "stress relievers" like endowment growth and investment earnings, or increased numbers of applicants or students enrolled.  Magnitude of "operating losses" are also not factored in; a school with annual losses of a few tens of thousand dollars that has growth in other areas and/or substantial endowment/investment gains shouldn't be dinged.  Same goes for rising aid as a data point taken in a vacuum.   Then there's the matter of timing of this study, which includes the impact of COVID but not the potential recovery since. 

And it would have been helpful for this to list which of the stressors schools had. 

The D3 schools with all stressors:  W&J, Wittenberg, John Carroll.   W&J's response:

QuoteThe Bloomberg analysis is based on a period when operations at Washington & Jefferson College and other institutions were impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. During this time, the college invested substantially in the health and safety of the campus community, voluntarily reducing revenue by limiting the number of students in residence and incurring significant expenses for rigorous safety protocols. Our financial strength, based on donor support and ample cash reserves, allowed us to make these investments while continuing to pay all employees. We are proud to offer a high-quality yet affordable education thanks largely to the exceptional generosity of alumni and friends, such as one who this fall provided a record $50 million gift to support student scholarships. W&J's enrollment has rebounded since 2021 and is at the highest level since 2019. The outlook for the coming year is quite positive as well, in part due to two dozen new programs, including a Bachelor of Science in Nursing. Our acceptance rate reflects our longstanding mission of providing college access to students who meet our high academic standards and are well qualified to succeed, as proven by retention and graduation rates well above national averages. We are pleased that W&J is fiscally sound, as confirmed within the last year by Standard & Poor's rating of BBB+ with a "stable outlook" (better than the industry as a whole). In addition, W&J received a financial grade of A- in the Forbes 2023 rating of the strongest and weakest colleges in the country.

UPS had four stressors; their response:

QuoteIt appears you have overlooked balance sheet indicators in your analysis. This is a significant omission, as schools with a robust balance sheet have a better capacity to withstand financial challenges. The University of Puget Sound, like most colleges and universities, has faced challenges, especially due to the pandemic and demographic shifts resulting in fewer college-aged students. However, we are confident in our financial stability, thanks to a growing endowment, healthy liquidity, and manageable debt. Our discount rate means that we can offer our students a higher level of financial aid without compromising our financial health.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on December 20, 2023, 10:53:27 AM
Yes. I noticed the same thing. W&L appears with 3 stressors, I think, I haven't looked at this article since I posted it. Of course, it is unknown which 3, but with 2.5B+ in assets as of 6/30/23 on the audited financials, and almost $1.98B endowment (78% of assets), I suspect the "stressors" are of the University's own making. Namely an increase in financial aid and a slight decrease in the number of students. Not sure what the third one would be, maybe operating loss in the short-term, but I think the analysis definitely applies to schools without a nest egg much better than to those with the ability to easily cover these "stress factors", especially over the short-term issue of the covid years.

Now, that does not mean that even W&L's endowment, and schools like it, will be able to cover the demographic issues indefinitely. But I suspect schools with $300MM or more in endowments are ok in the short-term and, I suspect, once you push over that $500MM, given active alumni support, you are probably ok in the longer term.

If you are looking at a school with $100MM and 3 or more of these stress factors, I'd be much more concerned. And under $50MM my kid is simply not going. Pick another college. It costs too much to gamble over a 4 year period that way. Even on a full-ride, the risk of disruption is massive and, in my opinion, very hard to call it worthwhile. The logistics of what do you do if the school goes under, even after graduation, and you need a transcript or a rec or something is just a massive pain.

Checking W&L's financials will help show why I think schools without massive endowments are in trouble. W&L's endowment high point was $2.09B reported June 2020, which included a massive 36% gain that year. So the value of the investments has drifted down over the following 2 years, despite steady increases in donations, and that may be one of the stress points.

I should point out that of W&L's 2BB or so, only about 400MM is unrestricted. So they can't do whatever they want with the vast majority of the endowment funds. The University is essentially an investment corporation, as ONLY $72MM in revenue comes from tuition and fees (that includes the law school, so 72/1850 undergrads does NOT give you the average cost of undergrad attendance).

What is interesting to note is that the University spends $90MM on instructional expense, so the revenue from tuition does not even cover the cost of instruction, let alone student services and plant. Total costs of almost $200MM dwarf the tuition revenue, so without being an investment corporation, W&L would run almost $150% in the red every year, though it wouldn't be so bad if they weren't handing out almost $60MM in student aid. Then it would only be about 50% in the red annually. But that should tell you why I'm skeptical of schools with smaller endowments.

Is W&L overpaying for instruction and services? Maybe versus a school with a smaller endowment. I'm sure W&L is not the cheapest run school, nor should it be with the financial backing available. However, it is important to note that without significant endowment assistance, W&L would have to seriously cut costs or student aid just to get even close to breaking even.

On the other hand, it's hard not going to comment on the fact that W&L's operating budget received $63MM from the internal endowment and $19MM from external trusts component of the endowment. 81MM from 2B... 4%. The school costs, on average, 27K per year for 1850 students. I mean, dropping that down to, say, 10K, would cost another 31.5M, or roughly less than 2% per year of the endowment. So spending 6% of the endowment annually would drop the cost of the school, on average, to one of the cheapest in the country. On the other hand, only $400MM of the endowment is unrestricted, so if that $31.5MM had to come from the unrestricted portion, that's almost 8% per year. A relatively large percentage, that a couple years of flat returns, like we've seen, would cut pretty drastically into the available funds.

So is that 6% ruinous? Hard to say. It would be very difficult to pull from the unrestricted account. And, to fund that $31.5MM on the same level as the current endowment contribution would require another $787MM in endowment devoted to tuition and fee reduction or unrestricted.

Figuring out the average return on endowment is over a long-term is a bit tricky. Certainly in the years since the high point hit, it would have made the endowment look very bad. But the 36% return in 2020 would mask a lot of basically flat to 1-2% negative returns over the last 2 or 3 years.

However, to put it in perspective, in the year 2000, when I graduated, NACUBA said W&L had a $400MM endowment. So that's a 425% increase over 23 years, which works out to a Compound Annual Growth Rate of 7.47%. Providing 4% per year to operating expenses all of a sudden doesn't seem so bad. Inflation over the last 20 years has averaged about 2.61% according to the Federal Reserve.

So despite paying 4% per year (using this year for all years over the 23 year period and assuming the 20 year inflation average is essentially the same as the 23 year), the endowment has grown around 4.75% per year post inflation. What does that work out to? Roughly $700MM over the period added to the endowment in post inflation dollars. If that had been cut to 2.75%, providing the extra 2% of the endowment needed to drop tuition significantly, it would still have been a $350MM increase post inflation.

So no, not ruinous, but definitely expensive, cutting the post inflation gains by half or $350MM. Plus, using averages is not strictly correct. Years where the base drops in the beginning have a much greater impact than the 36% gain toward the end thanks to the time value of money. So I suspect the effect would actually be a larger penalty, but I'm not going any deeper.

So if you've gotten this far, you are probably wondering what is the point? There are several.

1) Endowments are massively important. If you are looking at colleges to invest in for your kids' education, it's definitely a factor you need to take into account, especially with a private school. Probably the most important factor in the school's possible survival over the suspected demographic cliff we are about to hit.

2) Well-managed schools spend only a pittance of their endowment every year, but that is due to several good reasons. a) inflation is a bear b) unrestricted funds are not generally a large part of the endowment c) investment returns are not steady year over year

3) If you want to know how much trouble a school is in with possible declining enrollment, check to see how much of their operating budget tuition covers. If the ratio of tuition and fees to expenses is anywhere close to 1:1, declining enrollment could be a massive problem.

4) Is higher-education busted in this country? To some degree, yes. W&L basically has posted a roughly $700MM profit net of expenses and inflation over the last 23 years. Some of that is donations, some of that is investment profit. But a "non-profit" is absolutely profiting, it's just not distributing those profits and is holding them, "in trust" for future generations. However, over the same period, tuition and fees have steadily increased as well, so as the school has profited, the "customers" have paid more. I suspect this is true at most colleges with large endowments. They will say they are saving for a rainy day, and to some degree they are and that rainy day is just about on us, but the net result is a "non-profit" has essentially profited while continuously charging more to those it is supposed to serve.

Call me skeptical of our current model of higher education and it's "non-profit" status. Also call me skeptical of schools that have not done this successfully, as their tuition vs expenses pay model is going to be severely tested in the next 10-15 years.

What would I suggest? Here's where it gets a bit technical.

In order to keep "non-profit" status, I think the endowment should pay out roughly equal to the endowment gain vs a ratio like 2x inflation on a 5 year average 5 year trailing basis but collared at 4x inflation and limited to endowments of $500MM or above, adjusted every year for inflation. So, for 2020, schools should have budgeted to pay out any endowment gain they had, on average, over the period 2010-2015, that was more than 2x inflation but capped at 4x inflation. So if inflation was 2.5%, and the school's investment average was 7%, they would budged to pay 2% of the endowment to the operating budget. If they had an excellent period, with a 20% gain vs a 2.5% inflation rate, they would budget to pay out at least 10%, the remaining 10% could be reinvested.

If the school has a less than 2x inflation return, or a negative return average over the 5 years, it would not be required to draw down the endowment except that it still needs to pay bills and would likely do so regardless. Sub $500MM endowments would be exempt, or possibly have a graduated ratio (3x inflation or more as the lower limit), but the goal would be to ensure these schools can build to a healthy endowment. In fact, a straight endowment figure might not be a great idea, but rather endowment per student might be more effective.

This rolling time period/delayed rolling average, would allow schools to budget properly and also use investment returns while still allowing endowments to grow, even against the inflation rate. But it would limit the growth rate in most average years and, hopefully, benefit the consumers by putting more money to use.

Anyone who got this far... I'm impressed. You must really be interested in this topic. I'm a numbers guy, so I enjoyed playing with it, but I can't imagine reading it...
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 20, 2023, 03:48:23 PM
Yes, jknezek, I enjoyed your post.   :)
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 20, 2023, 05:43:51 PM

I recently had one school official tell me that their selective liberal arts institution with a $600m+ endowment was tuition dependent and actively cutting non-need-based financial aid.  Crazy times.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on December 20, 2023, 05:53:01 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on December 20, 2023, 05:43:51 PM

I recently had one school official tell me that their selective liberal arts institution with a $600m+ endowment was tuition dependent and actively cutting non-need-based financial aid.  Crazy times.

A lot depends on the restrictions placed on endowment funds by their respective donors, and a lot depends on how successful the schools are at investing the funds.  It's hard to touch principal to begin with, and if you are overly conservative (or overly risky) in your investment strategy and have a couple of bad years I could see being in that position.

EDIT:  I see jknezek made this point in much superior detail.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on March 11, 2024, 12:39:42 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on December 01, 2023, 12:03:32 PMhttp://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4409.18405#msg2100410

 Fontbonne in serious trouble.



Fontbonne announced it is closing in summer 2025.  Wash U is acquiring the campus as a land purchase, not a merger as I read this

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/business-journal/fontbonne-university-to-close-in-2025/63-e2c3f429-ea00-4136-a616-b0a5107b6c40

https://source.wustl.edu/2024/03/statement-regarding-fontbonne-university-campus/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 11, 2024, 12:44:58 PM
A little more in-depth take (and which agrees WashU is buying the campus but has no plans for its use):  https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2024/03/11/fontbonne-closing-washu-sale.html
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on March 11, 2024, 04:49:39 PM
Here's a little more insight on how the Fontbonne announcement affects the athletic teams for next year (since they don't plan to close until after the 2024-2025 academic year):

https://x.com/d3hoops/status/1767235981772525800?s=20

QuoteWord from Fontbonne is they expect to field their athletics teams next year, but they are not allowed to bring in any new student-athletes. Based on how the year went at Cabrini this year, it seems unlikely that they will field all of their teams.

That will produce a Cabrini-like last season effect for these teams, while also creating some short rosters.  I'm guessing that part of their teach-out plan is to revoke admissions for freshman for next year/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 11, 2024, 08:29:56 PM
The school's announcement (https://www.fontbonne.edu/fontbonne-university-to-close-after-summer-2025/) says they will not admit a class in the fall. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on March 11, 2024, 09:30:19 PM
Northland College in Ashland, WI is in trouble and needs $12 million by 4/3 to avoid closure: https://www.northland.edu/fund-a-new-northland/
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on March 11, 2024, 11:22:01 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on March 11, 2024, 09:30:19 PMNorthland College in Ashland, WI is in trouble and needs $12 million by 4/3 to avoid closure: https://www.northland.edu/fund-a-new-northland/

It's got to be a really hard sell with donors to tell them they need $12 million in three weeks to stay alive for next year and transition to a new model, but the only thing they can tell you about that model is "The process involves close collaboration with the Northland community to explore various options, which may include refining the college's focus."  In other words, they haven't figured out yet what they are going to do after blowing through your $12 million.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 12, 2024, 08:20:14 AM
Exactly.  "Hurry up and give us $12 million so we can figure out how much more we'll need to continue more than one more year and you can bet it will be more" is hardly a winning strategy. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on March 12, 2024, 09:03:22 AM
I basically think Finlandia was the canary in the coal mine for Northland. Hard to get recruits up there and being the easternmost team in the UMAC lead to some really long drives (they are about an hour from UW-Superior on US 2). Really unfortunate though for them. Ashland is a really nice place, have been up there a handful of times.

They really do have a nice soccer/football stadium facility. Do recall the high school in Ashland uses it a few times to play home games (recently against rival Hurley).
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on March 13, 2024, 05:44:09 PM
Regent has been accepted by the NCAA for an exploratory year in D3 in 2024-2025.

https://regentroyals.com/news/2024/3/11/general-regent-university-accepted-into-ncaa-exploratory-year.aspx

With all the bad news about D3 colleges closing or in financial trouble, it's nice to hear at least a little bit of good news, especially from a region of the country that is growing population-wise and where every additional D3 school is meaningful for conferences and creating schedules.

Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on March 13, 2024, 06:24:49 PM
It's nice to see another school but Regeant is in Virginia. I wouldn't say there is a shortage of D3 schools in Virginia by any measure. There's got to be almost 20 of them.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on March 13, 2024, 07:23:24 PM
Quote from: jknezek on March 13, 2024, 06:24:49 PMIt's nice to see another school but Regeant is in Virginia. I wouldn't say there is a shortage of D3 schools in Virginia by any measure. There's got to be almost 20 of them.

I was thinking of the Southeastern Quadrant of the country generally.  D3 is so heavily concentrated in the Northeastern Quadrant.  Plus, Regent is in the far southeastern part of VA near the North Carolina border. While Virginia Beach has a couple of close-by D3 schools, there aren't as many in NC in the eastern portion of the state and only Bob Jones in South Carolina. The only way that you are going to get non-NCAA schools to move to D3 is if there are a critical mass of schools in driving distance.  This just further enhances the creep of D3 schools southward.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 13, 2024, 09:09:30 PM
They'll need a conference invite (CNU is the required sponsor for exploratory).  Remember Bob Jones went down this path but had to abandon it when they couldn't get into a conference.  Their remoteness may have been an issue.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on March 14, 2024, 01:55:49 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 13, 2024, 09:09:30 PMThey'll need a conference invite (CNU is the required sponsor for exploratory).  Remember Bob Jones went down this path but had to abandon it when they couldn't get into a conference.  Their remoteness may have been an issue.

This is really the problem. The ODAC doesn't seem interested in splitting in half, though some sports are so over-stuffed you'd think it would be on the table. The USASAC might be interested to some degree. The split with the CCS makes it geographically more palatable than it would have been when those were combined.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: TheProvider on March 14, 2024, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: jknezek on March 14, 2024, 01:55:49 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 13, 2024, 09:09:30 PMThey'll need a conference invite (CNU is the required sponsor for exploratory).  Remember Bob Jones went down this path but had to abandon it when they couldn't get into a conference.  Their remoteness may have been an issue.

This is really the problem. The ODAC doesn't seem interested in splitting in half, though some sports are so over-stuffed you'd think it would be on the table. The USASAC might be interested to some degree. The split with the CCS makes it geographically more palatable than it would have been when those were combined.

I think you'll see Regent end up in the CoastToCoast.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on March 14, 2024, 03:54:45 PM
Quote from: TheProvider on March 14, 2024, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: jknezek on March 14, 2024, 01:55:49 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 13, 2024, 09:09:30 PMThey'll need a conference invite (CNU is the required sponsor for exploratory).  Remember Bob Jones went down this path but had to abandon it when they couldn't get into a conference.  Their remoteness may have been an issue.

This is really the problem. The ODAC doesn't seem interested in splitting in half, though some sports are so over-stuffed you'd think it would be on the table. The USASAC might be interested to some degree. The split with the CCS makes it geographically more palatable than it would have been when those were combined.

I think you'll see Regent end up in the CoastToCoast.

C2C does have Christopher Newport, Mary Washington, and Warren Wilson in the general vicinity already, but that kind of doesn't matter in that conference since they have no conference games and only a conference tournament.  Still, if Christopher Newport is serving as Regent's sponsor, it stands to reason they would welcome them in its conference.
 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: jknezek on March 14, 2024, 05:09:07 PM
Quote from: TheProvider on March 14, 2024, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: jknezek on March 14, 2024, 01:55:49 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 13, 2024, 09:09:30 PMThey'll need a conference invite (CNU is the required sponsor for exploratory).  Remember Bob Jones went down this path but had to abandon it when they couldn't get into a conference.  Their remoteness may have been an issue.

This is really the problem. The ODAC doesn't seem interested in splitting in half, though some sports are so over-stuffed you'd think it would be on the table. The USASAC might be interested to some degree. The split with the CCS makes it geographically more palatable than it would have been when those were combined.

I think you'll see Regent end up in the CoastToCoast.

I think we have to admit that the C2C is not a conference. It's a waystation and a last resort. I'm pretty sure everyone there wants out as soon as they can find anything else. If that is their best idea, it's a bad one.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 18, 2024, 10:30:48 AM
Other schools approved to dip their toes in last week:

Exploratory:  Mayville State (ND) [currently NAIA], Johnson & Wales University (Charlotte NC) [USCAA]
Year 1 Provisional D3 membership:  PSU-Brandywine [USCAA]
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: scottiedoug on March 19, 2024, 12:06:09 PM
There are other Southern deserts for DIII in the area currently Collegiate Conference of the South territory, where there are quite a few D2 and NAIA programs. Whatever MUW becomes, it is sort of near Mississippi and Alabama DIII programs. CCS is pretty small and does not do football.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: BUBeaverFan on March 20, 2024, 04:14:23 PM
https://www.findlayblufftonfuture.com/  Bluffton University NCAA DIII (HCAC)and The University of Findlay NCAA DII (GMAC) have entered into a merger agreement that hopes to maintain current sports affiliation after the merger is complete. Merger FAQ states a name change for Bluffton could happen in the future.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on March 20, 2024, 04:19:55 PM
Quote from: BUBeaverFan on March 20, 2024, 04:14:23 PMhttps://www.findlayblufftonfuture.com/  Bluffton University NCAA DIII (HCAC)and The University of Findlay NCAA DII (GMAC) have entered into a merger agreement that hopes to maintain current sports affiliation after the merger is complete. Merger FAQ states a name change for Bluffton could happen in the future.

According to the FAQ below, Findlay and Bluffton would retain their separate athletic departments/teams, with Findlay remaining in DII and Bluffton remaining DIII.  Does that mean a player could move between the two teams in their sport after the season without formally transferring schools?  I can't think of a single institution with teams in different NCAA divisions, although I have seen it when the schools merge and one of the schools is a branch campus with separate admissions.  It doesn't sound like that is what is happening here though

https://www.findlayblufftonfuture.com/faq/

"Athletics
How will a merger affect student-athletes?

Until legal approval is granted, student-athletes will continue to compete in their current athletic program as NCAA Division II University of Findlay Oilers and NCAA Division III Bluffton University Beavers. The intention, pending NCAA approval, is that the athletics programs at each institution will continue to operate under two divisions with University of Findlay competing in the Great Midwest Athletic Conference and Bluffton University competing in the Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference. This is a model that other schools who have merged are following successfully."
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: BUBeaverFan on March 20, 2024, 04:26:12 PM
The size disparity between the two institutions seems to beg the question of how long Bluffton will remain a separate but equal partner. As a Bluffton grad I hope for a long time but the demographic headwinds are very strong.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on March 20, 2024, 04:39:24 PM
Quote from: BUBeaverFan on March 20, 2024, 04:26:12 PMThe size disparity between the two institutions seems to beg the question of how long Bluffton will remain a separate but equal partner. As a Bluffton grad I hope for a long time but the demographic headwinds are very strong.

I saw that.  A 3000+ student institution and a 700 student institution "merger" sounds more like an acquisition than a merger.  The different religious affiliations and NCAA divisions could help keep them separate, but the fact that they are 20 minutes apart seems like it would eventually push towards consolidation to save on expenses.  If all they wanted to do was streamline low enrollment departments while still giving students maximum academic flexibility, they could have just formed a consortium that allows cross-registration. 
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Ron Boerger on March 20, 2024, 05:47:16 PM
It sounds more like an arms-length marriage of convenience than a merger.  I don't see what they are gaining by going this route given that it sounds like little will actually change.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Kuiper on March 26, 2024, 03:26:59 PM
Birmingham Southern announces it will close at the end of May

https://www.al.com/educationlab/2024/03/birmingham-southern-college-will-close-may-31-as-loan-bill-fails-to-gain-support.html

Quote"The Board of Trustees voted unanimously today to close the College after a 2024 bill designed to amend the 2023 legislation that established the loan program on which our future depended failed to win sufficient support in the Alabama House of Representatives. Without that funding, the College does not have the resources to continue," a letter from the Rev. Keith D. Thompson, the chair of BSC Board of Trustees, states.
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: scottiedoug on March 26, 2024, 10:36:45 PM

More on Birmingham Southern.  This is really unfortunate for so many people. It's not like there are too many good liberal arts colleges in the South.

https://www.trussvilletribune.com/2024/03/26/birmingham-southern-college-to-close-down-in-may/?fbclid=IwAR0yD8J8Qb6H5MHiBi3vmySuTeaNMxgr_M8mMIYkXI6dsEYaNc8TPoGjuc8
Title: Re: Future of Division III
Post by: Little Giant 89 on March 27, 2024, 10:00:00 AM
Always knew that there were schools in trouble resulting from market bubbles, bad financial decisions, and demographic trends, and then a pandemic would accelerate the demise of those troubled schools; still this drumbeat of closures is damned depressing.