Author Topic: Future of Division III  (Read 565335 times)

Offline Ron Boerger

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 6989
  • Karma: +646/-139
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2370 on: March 02, 2018, 08:38:22 am »
On a different note:   Hartwick College is abandoning their D1 men's soccer program in favor of a D3 program, and totally abandoning their D1 women's water polo program.   That will reduce the number of split D3/D1 schools by one starting next season. 

https://twitter.com/HartwickCollege/status/969294923873898496


Online Pat Coleman

  • D3sports.com Guru
  • Administrator
  • All-American
  • *****
  • Posts: 37181
  • Karma: +4503/-2200
  • Check the front page or FAQs before you ask.
    • View Profile
    • D3sports.com
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2371 on: March 02, 2018, 09:46:30 am »
They tried to kill D-I soccer there about a decade ago. I suppose it will probably stick this time.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Let's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

Online jknezek

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 4752
  • Karma: +777/-111
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2372 on: March 02, 2018, 10:00:46 am »
It's got to be getting to the point where the compliance costs of holding a DI program or two within a DIII athletic department are outweighing the benefits. Especially for a fringe spectator sport like soccer. I can almost see it with lax, and certainly the costs at a school like JHU can be buried and absorbed, but I wonder how long Hobart will hold out, even with their history. I also have no idea how the hockey teams do it. Hockey is just about the most expensive sport you can have, so that adds even more expense.

Anyone have a complete list of the grandfathered schools that still remain in those sports? We can bet on who is next.

Online Caz Bombers

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 684
  • Karma: +78/-23
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2373 on: March 02, 2018, 11:11:44 am »
It's got to be getting to the point where the compliance costs of holding a DI program or two within a DIII athletic department are outweighing the benefits. Especially for a fringe spectator sport like soccer. I can almost see it with lax, and certainly the costs at a school like JHU can be buried and absorbed, but I wonder how long Hobart will hold out, even with their history. I also have no idea how the hockey teams do it. Hockey is just about the most expensive sport you can have, so that adds even more expense.

Anyone have a complete list of the grandfathered schools that still remain in those sports? We can bet on who is next.

m/w hockey is RPI, Union, Clarkson, St. Lawrence and RIT. Colorado College women's soccer, Hobart men's lax, Johns Hopkins men's/women's lax, and I think that's the list as far as D3 is concerned.

Online Pat Coleman

  • D3sports.com Guru
  • Administrator
  • All-American
  • *****
  • Posts: 37181
  • Karma: +4503/-2200
  • Check the front page or FAQs before you ask.
    • View Profile
    • D3sports.com
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2374 on: March 02, 2018, 11:45:12 am »
Colorado College men's ice hockey goes on that list.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Let's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

Online Caz Bombers

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 684
  • Karma: +78/-23
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2375 on: March 02, 2018, 12:04:41 pm »
knew I was missing something Pat (and a reason for CC women's soccer to be D1 in the first place)...thanks

Offline Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 11493
  • Karma: +597/-338
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2376 on: March 02, 2018, 08:24:56 pm »

There are a couple d1 sports that got added after the grandfather, which means they can't give athletic scholarships, but still compete at d1.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Online Caz Bombers

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 684
  • Karma: +78/-23
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2377 on: March 03, 2018, 02:19:43 pm »
today I learned Franklin & Marshall wrestling is D1.

Offline sunny

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Karma: +62/-8
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2378 on: March 04, 2018, 11:41:47 am »
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 11:48:20 am by sunny »

Offline Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 11493
  • Karma: +597/-338
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2379 on: March 04, 2018, 01:49:42 pm »
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.

You should talk to the folks at Johns Hopkins about all the hoops they have to jump through to prove to the NCAA that their d3 programs are not benefiting from d1 money.  Maybe it's not perfect, but they're keeping an eye on things.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Offline sunny

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Karma: +62/-8
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2380 on: March 06, 2018, 06:51:49 am »
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.

You should talk to the folks at Johns Hopkins about all the hoops they have to jump through to prove to the NCAA that their d3 programs are not benefiting from d1 money.  Maybe it's not perfect, but they're keeping an eye on things.

Oh, I don't doubt that, and I do believe all those boxes are being checked as best they can. And I'll reiterate that yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair. As a Division III purist of sorts, I simply wish it had never been allowed to begin with.

Offline Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 11493
  • Karma: +597/-338
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2381 on: March 06, 2018, 07:12:52 am »
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.

You should talk to the folks at Johns Hopkins about all the hoops they have to jump through to prove to the NCAA that their d3 programs are not benefiting from d1 money.  Maybe it's not perfect, but they're keeping an eye on things.

Oh, I don't doubt that, and I do believe all those boxes are being checked as best they can. And I'll reiterate that yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair. As a Division III purist of sorts, I simply wish it had never been allowed to begin with.

I'm assuming "yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair" is probably the same rationale that kept them from doing it before.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Offline Ron Boerger

  • All-American
  • ******
  • Posts: 6989
  • Karma: +646/-139
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2382 on: March 06, 2018, 09:02:17 am »
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.

You should talk to the folks at Johns Hopkins about all the hoops they have to jump through to prove to the NCAA that their d3 programs are not benefiting from d1 money.  Maybe it's not perfect, but they're keeping an eye on things.

Oh, I don't doubt that, and I do believe all those boxes are being checked as best they can. And I'll reiterate that yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair. As a Division III purist of sorts, I simply wish it had never been allowed to begin with.

I suppose it was originally to "soften the blow" for schools moving from D1 to D3.  My alma mater made the transition decades ago but kept the only D1 program where it had which had much success, tennis (including a student who won Wimbledon as a senior; yes, it was a long time ago).    After about 15 years the (IMO correct) decision was made that scholarship players in one sport did not fit the school's mission and the program was moved to D3 status.   More schools will continue to do that, but there will likely be a few outliers who want to keep the "prestige" of a D1 program or two. 

That said, it certainly was impressive to see our guys competing with John McEnroe's top-ranked Stanford squad during my time there; if memory serves (and this article backs it up), we dealt him his only collegiate singles loss. 

Offline sunny

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Karma: +62/-8
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2383 on: March 06, 2018, 10:16:11 am »
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.

You should talk to the folks at Johns Hopkins about all the hoops they have to jump through to prove to the NCAA that their d3 programs are not benefiting from d1 money.  Maybe it's not perfect, but they're keeping an eye on things.

Oh, I don't doubt that, and I do believe all those boxes are being checked as best they can. And I'll reiterate that yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair. As a Division III purist of sorts, I simply wish it had never been allowed to begin with.

I'm assuming "yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair" is probably the same rationale that kept them from doing it before.

Perhaps, but that was the time to force them to make the choice. After that point, no Division III school could *add* a scholarship sport (save for adding an opposite gender one for equity purposes).

Once you've given the "grandfathered status," going back on that would be more unfair, no?

So that brings up a larger philosophical question - grandfathering anything without a specified end date (or at least a specified revisiting date) is sort of a silly thing to do, no?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 10:18:39 am by sunny »

Offline sunny

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Karma: +62/-8
    • View Profile
Re: Future of Division III
« Reply #2384 on: March 06, 2018, 10:20:08 am »
F&M wrestling and Hobart lacrosse are both non-scholarship.

I've always been puzzled by the stubbornness of the pro-DI Hobart folks. They were a DIII powerhouse and decided to "move up" without the benefit of scholarships, but by being unable to give scholarships in DI, they don't make a dent. Like Hartwick, they announced a move back to DIII about a decade ago and there was so much outcry from alums that they reversed course. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I suppose going back to DIII in men's lacrosse - where the landscape is far more competitive than it was when they left, would sort of be lose-lose to some people. There is almost no chance they'd replicate their previous dominance - I guess as a non-scholarship DI team, they can boast that they compete against scholarship schools while also using the absence of scholarships as a way to temper expectations. But, they could most assuredly be a highly competitive DIII program at any rate.

I personally wish the scholarship programs were never allowed to be grandfathered. To revoke that status now seems unfair to those programs, but there is simply no way to ensure that a school's Division III teams are not receiving some sort of direct or tangential benefits from carrying a scholarship Division I sport. While I'm aware scholarship athletes are not allowed to compete on the Division III teams as a second sport, it's hard to rule out the success and exposure of Hopkins lacrosse or Union ice hockey, for example, not benefitting their DIII programs (along with the quality of support resources available to the entire department that likely at least partially exist because of the presence of those programs). Again, it would certainly seem unfair to take away the grandfathering now (as was also discussed and ultimately defeated years ago), but I would love to learn more about the rationale for allowing it when the decision was first made.

You should talk to the folks at Johns Hopkins about all the hoops they have to jump through to prove to the NCAA that their d3 programs are not benefiting from d1 money.  Maybe it's not perfect, but they're keeping an eye on things.

Oh, I don't doubt that, and I do believe all those boxes are being checked as best they can. And I'll reiterate that yanking that away from them now would be grossly unfair. As a Division III purist of sorts, I simply wish it had never been allowed to begin with.

I suppose it was originally to "soften the blow" for schools moving from D1 to D3.  My alma mater made the transition decades ago but kept the only D1 program where it had which had much success, tennis (including a student who won Wimbledon as a senior; yes, it was a long time ago).    After about 15 years the (IMO correct) decision was made that scholarship players in one sport did not fit the school's mission and the program was moved to D3 status.   More schools will continue to do that, but there will likely be a few outliers who want to keep the "prestige" of a D1 program or two. 

That said, it certainly was impressive to see our guys competing with John McEnroe's top-ranked Stanford squad during my time there; if memory serves (and this article backs it up), we dealt him his only collegiate singles loss.

I agree that we will see more of these grandfathered programs who haven't had much success go by the wayside - which will frankly make the ones that *have* been successful stick out like even greater legislated exceptions.