Waldorf's Scarano looking at athletic options
www.theseniorreports.com/naiadiv3.htm
"I think right now it is either two things," Scarano said. "It's remaining NAIA or the possibility of reclassification to NCAA Division-III."
Scarano reiterated that the move to D-III is only a possibility and far from a certainty.
Does the NCAA allow for-profit schools to join? Waldorf is one and were kicked out of the Midwest Collegiate Conference for being so. Also if they were to join Division III which conference would they join? There's no way the Midwest Conference would accept a for-profit school and I doubt the IIAC would as well. Would the UMAC or SLIAC accept them although it is a stretch of either conference's geographical footprint to do so?
If the Midwest Conference REALLY, REALLY wanted to get back to an even number of schools, then they could add Waldorf. But that would be a giant gut punch to the egos of the MWC to add a for-profit school. Probably not going to happen.
according to article -
If Waldorf were to go the Division-III rout, the Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (Wartburg, Central, Coe, etc ...) or the Upper Midwest Athletic Conference, a league with a slew of Minnesota colleges, are the logical fits, Scarano said.
"We've had communication with them," he said. "Are they interested or would they accept us? Who knows."
Waldorf is on the Iowa/Minnesota border. They would fit well in the UMAC from a geographical and competitive standpoint. I am sure the UMAC would love to have them.
I would guess the IIAC would want to keep their hands off Waldorf now that the school has gone the for-profit route. But, with Cornell leaving the IIAC for the Midwest...I suppose the IIAC would listen to what Waldorf has to say.
I wouldn't bet on the UMAC loving to have Waldorf. The UMAC has a perfectly reasonable number of schools right now and the scheduling works well.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 14, 2011, 03:45:40 PM
I wouldn't bet on the UMAC loving to have Waldorf. The UMAC has a perfectly reasonable number of schools right now and the scheduling works well.
Adding Waldorf would give them 7 football teams without needing the SLIAC's help to get an AQ. A trip to the southern border of Minnesota is better than a trip to St. Louis. However, I don't know if the NCAA has ever accepted a for-profit school.
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on July 14, 2011, 10:03:46 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 14, 2011, 03:45:40 PM
I wouldn't bet on the UMAC loving to have Waldorf. The UMAC has a perfectly reasonable number of schools right now and the scheduling works well.
Adding Waldorf would give them 7 football teams without needing the SLIAC's help to get an AQ. A trip to the southern border of Minnesota is better than a trip to St. Louis. However, I don't know if the NCAA has ever accepted a for-profit school.
The UMAC's adding Finlandia as a football affiliate in 2012 would get them an AQ faster, and might be more "palatable" to UMAC member institutions.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 15, 2011, 12:53:20 AM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on July 14, 2011, 10:03:46 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 14, 2011, 03:45:40 PM
I wouldn't bet on the UMAC loving to have Waldorf. The UMAC has a perfectly reasonable number of schools right now and the scheduling works well.
Adding Waldorf would give them 7 football teams without needing the SLIAC's help to get an AQ. A trip to the southern border of Minnesota is better than a trip to St. Louis. However, I don't know if the NCAA has ever accepted a for-profit school.
The UMAC's adding Finlandia as a football affiliate in 2012 would get them an AQ faster, and might be more "palatable" to UMAC member institutions.
Doesn't the UMAC already have the AQ this fall?
Not positive, but I believe the answer is yes. BUT, that is with SLIAC. Waldorf would cut travel costs dramatically. Whether or not that makes up for a for-profit school, I have no idea.
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on July 14, 2011, 10:03:46 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 14, 2011, 03:45:40 PM
I wouldn't bet on the UMAC loving to have Waldorf. The UMAC has a perfectly reasonable number of schools right now and the scheduling works well.
Adding Waldorf would give them 7 football teams without needing the SLIAC's help to get an AQ. A trip to the southern border of Minnesota is better than a trip to St. Louis. However, I don't know if the NCAA has ever accepted a for-profit school.
There are other sports besides football. They have an even number with reasonable travel partners right now.
The NCAA does accept for-profit schools as members. Here's a story from the NCAA's own website (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Latest+News/2011/March/Drawing+from+scratch+at+the+Academy+of+Art+University) about a for-profit institution that's currently a candidate school in the D2 pipeline, the Academy of Art University in San Francisco.
That doesn't mean that the IIAC, or the SLIAC, or the UMAC, or any other D3 league, would want to accept Waldorf as a member. Faculty and administrators at traditional not-for-profit institutions tend to look at for-profits as either something stuck to the bottom of their shoes or as a pandemically-contagious retrovirus. As the article states, the reason why the PacWest, the D2 league that accepted the Academy of Art University as a member, took in the Urban Knights was because defections had brought it below the six-school minimum required to be a member conference of D2.