Future of Division III

[KnightSlappy]

Do we have rumblings of D4 again?  This appeared on D3Playbook.

https://stevedittmore.substack.com/p/what-ncaa-division-iii-schools-excelled?utm_source=www.d3playbook.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=is-it-time-for-division-iii-to-revisit-its-structure

This blog did not add much to the conversation, but this quote from a former president of Carleton College was interesting:

"Since there are very different interests of institutions within the current Division III, a new Division, comprising those institutions that would like to see intercollegiate athletics brought back into better balance with both the academic and the other co-curricular activities of our colleges and universities, still seems to me an outcome that could be highly beneficial"

If I could talk to the former president, I would ask him to imagine two subdivisions within Division III and then ask him to give examples of the institutions that would end up in the same subdivision as Carleton and examples that would end up in the other?

To me these comments read as "We resent having to compete [for attention/students/players] with institutions we deem to be lesser than ours. We would prefer if our institutional advantages were the only advantages allowed to exist."

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

"We don't want students who make college decisions based on athletics and we don't want to compete against schools who accept students who make college decisions based on athletics."

That's the vibe I get from a lot of places.

[ronk]

"We don't want students who make college decisions based on athletics and we don't want to compete against schools who accept students who make college decisions based on athletics."

That's the vibe I get from a lot of places.

 College decisions are made based on a number of factors: academics, finances(public vs private; merit vs income aid; commuting vs room & board), student body size, prestige, and, for the athletes, program success; separation of D3 athletics into tiers of philosophy will largely depend on what proportion of that decision should be allocated to athletics vs all the other factors.

[maripp2002]

That is definitely the vibe, but in some ways that's understandable. D3 is kind of unique, in that one of the only thing all 427 schools that compete in division 3 agreed on is that they wouldn't be awarding scholarships.

Outside of that, many schools are more different than they are alike. Enrollments run from around 300 at Principa College to around 30,000 at NYU. There are schools where athletics are very important to keeping the lights on (more than 65% athletes) to places that have a relatively small percentage of the students participating in athletics.

I made a point on the NCAC board when Wash U became an affiliate for football, that your conference is really the one area where you can seek to find like minded institutions in things like enrollment, athletics, academics, and even geography. That's really the best you're going to get at the D3 level. That's why you can have conferences like the WIAC and the NJAC that exist right alongside the NACC and GNAC.

There are 3 essential requirements to be D3 - must sponsor at least 5 sports for men and 5 for women(minus title IX requirements, thanks for the update!), you must not award athletic scholarships, and you can't use any pre-enrollment form. That is IT.

A big tent means that there is never going to be true equality, in athletics or academics and that's just how it is. So, you can see why schools may want to create a division IV, but at the end of the day, all of the schools decided on a very limited set of criteria for the division, and it certainly makes for a wild run of differences from top to bottom. Of course, everyone wants to give their student athletes a chance to compete for and win national championships, so I get why some schools want a Division IV.

With all of that said, D3 is currently pay to play, and the 400+ schools offer that in spades, so if the worst case outcome is that students get four more years playing sports they love, even if they're not winning titles, that seems like it's really fulfilling the stated athletic mission for the division.

[Gregory Sager]

There are 3 essential requirements to be D3 - must sponsor at least 3 sports for men and 3 for women(minus title IX requirements),

Three team sports for men and three team sports for women. A D3 school must sponsor five varsity intercollegiate sports for men and five varsity intercollegiate sports for women if the enrollment is 1,000 or fewer, or six varsity intercollegiate sports for men and six varsity intercollegiate sports for women if the enrollment is over 1,000. Those minimum requirements include both team and individual sports, although, as stated, six of the required ten or six of the required twelve must be team sports.

It's on page 181 of the latest edition of the NCAA Division III Manual, specifically Bylaw 20.11.4.1 and Bylaw 20.11.4.2, if you want to check it out.

https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D325.pdf

Aside from that, I agree with everything you said.

[IC798891]

"We don't want students who make college decisions based on athletics and we don't want to compete against schools who accept students who make college decisions based on athletics."

That's the vibe I get from a lot of places.

If you actively recruited them, they made their decision based on athletics. The specific weight they give to athletics vs. everything else may vary, but their decision was impacted by athletics.

If you truly don't want people to make a decision based on athletics, you'd save a lot of money because you could scratch off your recruiting budget and just make do with walk-ons.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

"We don't want students who make college decisions based on athletics and we don't want to compete against schools who accept students who make college decisions based on athletics."

That's the vibe I get from a lot of places.

If you actively recruited them, they made their decision based on athletics. The specific weight they give to athletics vs. everything else may vary, but their decision was impacted by athletics.

If you truly don't want people to make a decision based on athletics, you'd save a lot of money because you could scratch off your recruiting budget and just make do with walk-ons.

That's the catch 22, right?  You hire a coach, do you want them twiddling their thumbs all day?  I suspect some schools do.  They want full time faculty who coach part time and make do with whoever shows up to play.

We make a big deal about the fact that D3 isn't just glorified intramurals, but the reality is there are still a lot of faculty and administrations around the country who'd like it to be just that, who see full time coaches with no teaching duties as outside the ethos of d3.

It's not a dichotomy, though (as nothing ever is) - you've got people who want to draw the d3 line all over the place and thus, as I said, I think it's highly unlikely you'll get any real traction for something different, because no one can agree on what that different thing should be.

The question will be what happens when/if (but really when) the NCAA goes away and people are forced to figure out something different.

[Ron Boerger]

I'm not sure the NCAA will go away (though it will dramatically change), but certainly the NCAA gravy train that funds D2 and D3 (and lesser D1) championships will. 

[DagarmanSpartan]

... no cliff for Case Western Reserve does not mean no cliff, still.

Not to belabor the point, but two of my other alma layers, Illinois and Houston, also recently announced record enrollments, with Illinois over 60,000 and Houston over 49,000.

No demographic cliffs there either.

[Kuiper]

... no cliff for Case Western Reserve does not mean no cliff, still.

Not to belabor the point, but two of my other alma layers, Illinois and Houston, also recently announced record enrollments, with Illinois over 60,000 and Houston over 49,000.

No demographic cliffs there either.

As many people have explained to you before, the Class of 2025 was the highwater mark for high school graduation numbers.  The drop in high school graduates doesn't appear until the current crop of HS seniors graduate (Class of 2026) and continues until 2041.  So, if a school didn't have a record enrollment year last year, it's not because of a demographic cliff and if it did it has nothing to do with "disproving" a demographic cliff, nor does it necessarily mean their school won't ever experience its effects.   In fact, some schools likely over-enrolled this fall precisely because they were worried about the demographic cliff and a larger class this year would help offset declines over the next four years.  I doubt Case, Illinois, or Houston will be among the schools most at-risk because of either prestige, low cost, or both, though, so your alma maters likely have less to worry about.  Many D3 small liberal arts colleges, however, are at risk, in part because of changing trends that the demographic cliff only exacerbates.

[jaller]

... no cliff for Case Western Reserve does not mean no cliff, still.

Not to belabor the point, but two of my other alma layers, Illinois and Houston, also recently announced record enrollments, with Illinois over 60,000 and Houston over 49,000.

No demographic cliffs there either.

As many people have explained to you before, the Class of 2025 was the highwater mark for high school graduation numbers.  The drop in high school graduates doesn't appear until the current crop of HS seniors graduate (Class of 2026) and continues until 2041.  So, if a school didn't have a record enrollment year last year, it's not because of a demographic cliff and if it did it has nothing to do with "disproving" a demographic cliff, nor does it necessarily mean their school won't ever experience its effects.   In fact, some schools likely over-enrolled this fall precisely because they were worried about the demographic cliff and a larger class this year would help offset declines over the next four years.  I doubt Case, Illinois, or Houston will be among the schools most at-risk because of either prestige, low cost, or both, though, so your alma maters likely have less to worry about.  Many D3 small liberal arts colleges, however, are at risk, in part because of changing trends that the demographic cliff only exacerbates.

Very well stated. 3 schools having record enrollment does not negate the reality of the upcoming demographic cliff.

[Ron Boerger]

... no cliff for Case Western Reserve does not mean no cliff, still.

Not to belabor the point, but two of my other alma layers, Illinois and Houston, also recently announced record enrollments, with Illinois over 60,000 and Houston over 49,000.

No demographic cliffs there either.

Respectfully, you have been belaboring this point by cherry-picking data points ever since you started in on it.  In addition to what has already repeatedly been stated, large state schools are not nearly as subject to the cliff as small schools.

[Pat Coleman]

... no cliff for Case Western Reserve does not mean no cliff, still.

Not to belabor the point, but two of my other alma layers, Illinois and Houston, also recently announced record enrollments, with Illinois over 60,000 and Houston over 49,000.

No demographic cliffs there either.

Hi -- maybe please listen to what people are saying about this, OK? Let me know if you need me to explain it more clearly, Ryan.

[DagarmanSpartan]

My guess is that only the VERY SMALLEST and LEAST STABLE schools will really feel any effects here.

CWRU isn't a large school (6500 or so undergrads), and even it wasn't affected, apparently.

[Pat Coleman]

CWRU isn't a large school (6500 or so undergrads), and even it wasn't affected, apparently.

No, I'm sure it was not affected this year by a demographic downturn that doesn't even start until next year.