Future of Division III

[y_jack_lok]

^^^ That was an overall interesting interview. Both the AD and the interviewer were good. When it came up at the end about the 80-100-120 schools considering their options, it was in the context of Division 3 being too large, but not really about colleges being attractive and well-resourced or unattractive and under-resourced. She also noted that in the movement between divisions, there is greater movement toward D3 than away from D3.

[Ron Boerger]

All the NCAA has to do is say "we get 3.18% from D1 to fund D3.  You want D4, go ahead and pay for it" and the idea will dissipate like a fart in the wind.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I think it's more of a "when the NCAA doesn't have any money to give us anymore, there are some schools thinking about what's next."

That 3.18% is either going to go away or be effectively zeroed out.  The schools who drive the TV revenue aren't going to keep sharing even a small portion of it with everyone else.  I'm not sure how long it will take, but it's going to happen.

At the very least, they'll pull all the revenue sports out of the NCAA and leave it to administer championships for the olympic sports on a shoestring budget.  At that point, there may not be divisions at all anymore.

The schools who want to prioritize the things d3 has traditionally valued are wise to think and talk about what comes next.

[WUPHF]

I think it's more of a "when the NCAA doesn't have any money to give us anymore, there are some schools thinking about what's next."

That 3.18% is either going to go away or be effectively zeroed out.  The schools who drive the TV revenue aren't going to keep sharing even a small portion of it with everyone else.  I'm not sure how long it will take, but it's going to happen.

At the very least, they'll pull all the revenue sports out of the NCAA and leave it to administer championships for the olympic sports on a shoestring budget.  At that point, there may not be divisions at all anymore.

The schools who want to prioritize the things d3 has traditionally valued are wise to think and talk about what comes next.

Interesting, I guess the reference to Division IV (or not Division IV specifically) let me thinking she was talking about something else.

I understand your points, though I do not see Division III going away anytime soon.

[WUPHF]

As an addendum to a previous post...

University of Chicago Announces $100 Million Budget Cuts Amid Federal Policy Changes

https://chicagomaroon.com/48358/news/university-of-chicago-announces-100-million-budget-cuts-amid-federal-policy-changes/

[Ron Boerger]

As an addendum to a previous post...

University of Chicago Announces $100 Million Budget Cuts Amid Federal Policy Changes

https://chicagomaroon.com/48358/news/university-of-chicago-announces-100-million-budget-cuts-amid-federal-policy-changes/

From the article:

In fiscal year (FY) 2024, UChicago's budget deficit hit $288 million against a $3.2 billion operating budget. In November 2024, Baicker and Enterprise Chief Financial Officer Ivan Samstein announced that increased revenue growth had narrowed the projected deficit for FY2025 to $221 million, along with plans to eliminate it completely by FY2028.

The University was on track to meet that goal until January, when the financial picture began to look "pretty different," due in large part to federal funding cuts and uncertainty surrounding future international student enrollment, Baicker told the Maroon in May.

A $100M cut "over the next several years" (per the article) isn't going to do much if they are already running $200M+ annual deficits.  With a $10.4B endowment they can probably get through this but you're still talking around a billion dollar loss over 4 years depending on the impact of federal cuts.  At the end of FY24 they reported $20.3B in assets against $8.7B in liabilities, primarily bonds payable. 

Another factor in the overall UC picture is that they have an associated medical school/hospital which contributed $4.3B of the school's total $7.5B in revenue in 2024.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I think it's more of a "when the NCAA doesn't have any money to give us anymore, there are some schools thinking about what's next."

That 3.18% is either going to go away or be effectively zeroed out.  The schools who drive the TV revenue aren't going to keep sharing even a small portion of it with everyone else.  I'm not sure how long it will take, but it's going to happen.

At the very least, they'll pull all the revenue sports out of the NCAA and leave it to administer championships for the olympic sports on a shoestring budget.  At that point, there may not be divisions at all anymore.

The schools who want to prioritize the things d3 has traditionally valued are wise to think and talk about what comes next.

Interesting, I guess the reference to Division IV (or not Division IV specifically) let me thinking she was talking about something else.

I understand your points, though I do not see Division III going away anytime soon.

I don't think the concept or the principles of Division III will likely ever go away - there will always be schools who want to offer sports without it taking over the lives of athletes or the finances of the school - but I really don't have a lot of hope for the longterm future of anything named "NCAA."

[Ron Boerger]

I don't think the concept or the principles of Division III will likely ever go away - there will always be schools who want to offer sports without it taking over the lives of athletes or the finances of the school - but I really don't have a lot of hope for the longterm future of anything named "NCAA."

Agree.  We need to enjoy the 3.18% while D3 is getting from the AA (along with the expanded playoff oppos that money provides) because when the gravy train stops it's gonna be ugly.

[Gregory Sager]

I don't think the concept or the principles of Division III will likely ever go away - there will always be schools who want to offer sports without it taking over the lives of athletes or the finances of the school - but I really don't have a lot of hope for the longterm future of anything named "NCAA."

Agree.  We need to enjoy the 3.18% while D3 is getting from the AA (along with the expanded playoff oppos that money provides) because when the gravy train stops it's gonna be ugly.

My guess is that D3 will then have to move to the NAIA model for national championship tournaments and meets; in other words, instead of the national organization footing the bills for travel and lodging, the participating schools pay for themselves.

[y_jack_lok]

I don't think the concept or the principles of Division III will likely ever go away - there will always be schools who want to offer sports without it taking over the lives of athletes or the finances of the school - but I really don't have a lot of hope for the longterm future of anything named "NCAA."

Are we at a point where the discussion here begins to overlap with the FloSports discussion? I.e., should the NCAA cease to exist, then if current D3 schools want to continue to offer athletic opportunities for students revenue sources become even more critical, thus charging for live streaming games is likely to become ubiquitous, whether via Flo or schools/conferences establishing their own paywalls. Also, the price to view games could well increase.

[Kuiper]

I think it's more of a "when the NCAA doesn't have any money to give us anymore, there are some schools thinking about what's next."

That 3.18% is either going to go away or be effectively zeroed out.  The schools who drive the TV revenue aren't going to keep sharing even a small portion of it with everyone else.  I'm not sure how long it will take, but it's going to happen.

At the very least, they'll pull all the revenue sports out of the NCAA and leave it to administer championships for the olympic sports on a shoestring budget.  At that point, there may not be divisions at all anymore.

The schools who want to prioritize the things d3 has traditionally valued are wise to think and talk about what comes next.

Interesting, I guess the reference to Division IV (or not Division IV specifically) let me thinking she was talking about something else.

I understand your points, though I do not see Division III going away anytime soon.

I think the Division IV reference floating around in podcasts and opinion pieces has been to a world in which the bottom DI high academic schools that don't participate in revenue sharing effectively become DIII with the top current DIII schools and the rest of the schools become DIV.  This has been discussed informally not as a prediction of some eventual reorganization that involves creating another Division, but as a description of the reality of spending and prioritization in college athletics.  Even now, I think it's fair to say that there are some bottom of the barrel DIII schools that really operate on the same kind of shoestring, minimal facilities and travel, budget of a low NAIA or NCCAA etc school that many would consider a level below traditional DIII.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I don't think the concept or the principles of Division III will likely ever go away - there will always be schools who want to offer sports without it taking over the lives of athletes or the finances of the school - but I really don't have a lot of hope for the longterm future of anything named "NCAA."

Are we at a point where the discussion here begins to overlap with the FloSports discussion? I.e., should the NCAA cease to exist, then if current D3 schools want to continue to offer athletic opportunities for students revenue sources become even more critical, thus charging for live streaming games is likely to become ubiquitous, whether via Flo or schools/conferences establishing their own paywalls. Also, the price to view games could well increase.

Right.  Let's say 150 low D1, high D3, academically selective schools join together in some alliance.  They can then sell those rights as a package and maybe actually develop and audience and a business model, just like conferences are trying to do with Flo right now.

Because there's no real central negotiating body for these rights currently, Flo's having to do it piecemeal, but I'm sure they'd much rather deal with a larger body of schools.

Nobody knows how all this is going to shake out, but it's unlikely any one conference will be able to go forward alone - and even if conference autonomy and distinctions are maintained, they're going to need some stronger central body to leverage what they have, run championships, sell rights, etc.

[Gregory Sager]

Even now, I think it's fair to say that there are some bottom of the barrel DIII schools that really operate on the same kind of shoestring, minimal facilities and travel, budget of a low NAIA or NCCAA etc school that many would consider a level below traditional DIII.

I don't think that that's generally the case, though, because there's a mandated minimum of 12 sponsored sports required for a co-ed school to hold D3 membership. The NAIA only requires the sponsorship of six sports, and the NCCAA has no such minimum at all.

Is there an overlap in the Venn diagram of NAIA-member athletic budgets and D3-member athletic budgets? I'm sure that there is, because there are some NAIA schools that sponsor a fairly comprehensive menu of sports (I'm thinking 20 or more is "fairly comprehensive" by D3 standards) and there are some D3 schools that stick to the bare minimum of 12, or close to it. But, after glancing at a number of NAIA sports webpages, it doesn't seem to me that the overlap in terms of number of sponsored sports is terribly large.

Looking at what is by far the most expensive and resource-intensive sport to operate, football, around 56% of D3 institutions that admit males sponsor that sport, whereas only about 41% of NAIA institutions sponsor it. That's a pretty big discrepancy.

It seems to me that those shoestring D3s that have athletic budgets lower than the mean average of NAIA athletic budgets are definitely outliers.

[Kuiper]

Even now, I think it's fair to say that there are some bottom of the barrel DIII schools that really operate on the same kind of shoestring, minimal facilities and travel, budget of a low NAIA or NCCAA etc school that many would consider a level below traditional DIII.

I don't think that that's generally the case, though, because there's a mandated minimum of 12 sponsored sports required for a co-ed school to hold D3 membership. The NAIA only requires the sponsorship of six sports, and the NCCAA has no such minimum at all.

Is there an overlap in the Venn diagram of NAIA-member athletic budgets and D3-member athletic budgets? I'm sure that there is, because there are some NAIA schools that sponsor a fairly comprehensive menu of sports (I'm thinking 20 or more is "fairly comprehensive" by D3 standards) and there are some D3 schools that stick to the bare minimum of 12, or close to it. But, after glancing at a number of NAIA sports webpages, it doesn't seem to me that the overlap in terms of number of sponsored sports is terribly large.

Looking at what is by far the most expensive and resource-intensive sport to operate, football, around 56% of D3 institutions that admit males sponsor that sport, whereas only about 41% of NAIA institutions sponsor it. That's a pretty big discrepancy.

It seems to me that those shoestring D3s that have athletic budgets lower than the mean average of NAIA athletic budgets are definitely outliers.

Perhaps I see it more because I'm out in Region X, which is itself an outlier and there are plenty of schools that moved from NAIA, USCCAA etc to DIII not so long ago.  They added sports, but often with sparse facilities and a budget that looks stretched out over those new sports.