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
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
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
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
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:

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
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
redswarm81:

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

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

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?

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?

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

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


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,


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
Quote
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?

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

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: redswarm81
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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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
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:

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.

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.

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, . . .

And 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?

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.

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
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
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.

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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.

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.

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.

Now 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
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
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.

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).
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.

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
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).

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
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

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
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
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
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.

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
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.

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.

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.

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.)

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
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
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.
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
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.
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.

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.

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.

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.
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
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.

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.

Your 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.

You 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?

And 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?

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.
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
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?

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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
In 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
In 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
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
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.

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).
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?

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
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
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
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
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
Didn't you know? Methodists are perennials, just plant one and you get a bunch every spring.

Unfortunately, they do not grow to perfection.  ;)

Lutherans are annuals, you have to plant new ones every year.

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

Both are grown organically by the Amish.

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

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
Didn't you know? Methodists are perennials, just plant one and you get a bunch every spring.

Unfortunately, they do not grow to perfection.  ;)

Lutherans are annuals, you have to plant new ones every year.

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

Both are grown organically by the Amish.

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

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
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
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
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
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

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
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
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

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
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
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
(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
REALLYYYYYY?????  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
REALLYYYYYY?????  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
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?

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
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
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
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
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.

[...]
ps. Kid has a little picture to sum up today's game, stay tuned! ;D

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?!

(http://www.bridgewaterfootball.com/images/ehcstands1.jpg)
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
2009-10 -- 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
2009-10 -- 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
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
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.)

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
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
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
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
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
Please 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

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

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

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...

(http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/resources/image/468b6040e4d2da69/3spotchart2.jpg)
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
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...

(http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/resources/image/468b6040e4d2da69/3spotchart2.jpg)



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
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
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
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
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
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) 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.)

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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


Right? ???


They say


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
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

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 News
Doesn'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: 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
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
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
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
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

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

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
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
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
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
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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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

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
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
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
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...

Quote
Other 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

Got a little too grabby when you went to see the Windsor Ballet, eh?  ;)

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
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
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
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

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
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


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


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
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.

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
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
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
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
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
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

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

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

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

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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
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
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.

Quote
NCAA 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
Interesting news blurb on the NAIA board (http://naia.cstv.com/member-services/RMC/RMC_update_current.htm) under the Regional Mnagement Committee update.

Quote
NCAA 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
Interesting news blurb on the NAIA board (http://naia.cstv.com/member-services/RMC/RMC_update_current.htm) under the Regional Mnagement Committee update.

Quote
NCAA 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
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
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
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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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 Times
If 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: Bill Pennington, New York Times
If 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


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

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

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
  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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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


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
...

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
...

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
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
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
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
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)

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.

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

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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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.

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
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.

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.

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
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
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
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
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.

I 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
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!!!!

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
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!!!!

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
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
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.


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
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
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
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
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
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
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?

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
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
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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
...
 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:

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%.


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
Wasn't part of D-4 also to eliminate championships and playoffs and just play the season?

Interesting post from early on this board.

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
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.


Quote
Quote 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:

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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.

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

Quote
Amend (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
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.

Quote
Amend (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

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
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
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.
 
Quote
Single-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)

Quote
In 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
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."



Quote
The 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
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
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
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.


Quote
Has 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

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
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
Of course, Amherst, the 2007 national DIII basketball champion, suffered a defeat in its conference's single elimination 2007 tournament.

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
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

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
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
The 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
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
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
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
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: Non