Future of Division III

[Kuiper]

Saw a stat on trends in high school graduates in an article about the enrollment cliff that caught my eye.  This doesn't mean any particular school is in trouble, nor are these stats necessarily evidence of the enrollment cliff (2025 is too early for the "demographic cliff" and probably reflects migration out of the Midwest) but these aren't good stats for small DIII schools operating and recruiting in those states.

In 2025, Michigan experienced the sixth largest drop of high school graduates in the country and the second biggest drop in the Midwest with a 20% decline, while Illinois experienced a 32% decline.

The Michigan Association of State Universities (MASU) serves as the coordinating board for the state's 15 public universities. Their data reflects that this decline in enrollment is linked to fewer high school graduates, with 104,326 high school graduates statewide in 2025, estimated to drop to 85,131 by 2041, which is nearly 19%.

If accurate (capturing more than just public HS grads and the first set of numbers are annual declines, rather than over some period), those are pretty startling declines.

[Ron Boerger]

Here's a review of overall enrollment for the current school year courtesy the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center - much more detail available at the URL above, but these are their highlights from their "Final Fall Enrollment Trends 2025 Report":

• In fall 2025, there were over 19.4 million postsecondary enrollments —16.2 million undergraduate and 3.2 million graduate students. Compared to 19.2 million students last fall, this is a 1.0 percent increase in total postsecondary enrollment, driven by undergraduate gains (+1.2%) while graduate enrollment remained stable (-0.3%).Growth in undergraduate enrollment was driven by a 3.0 percent increase in community college enrollment, compared to a 1.4 percent increase at public 4-year colleges. Private 4-year institutions saw declines in undergraduate enrollment this fall (-1.6% at nonprofit and -2.0% at for-profit institutions).
• Enrollment in undergraduate certificate and associate degree programs continues to grow at a faster pace than bachelor's program enrollment (+1.9% and +2.2% compared to +0.9%). After four years of consecutive growth, there are now 752,000 enrollments in undergraduate certificate programs at community colleges, a total increase of 28.3 percent from fall 2021.
• Graduate international student enrollment declined 5.9 percent after years of steady growth (-10,000). At the undergraduate level, there was an increase in international enrollment (+3.2%, +5,000) but at less than half the rate than last fall (+8.4%).
• Freshman enrollment remained stable this fall (-0.2%) at 2.5 million students. Public 4-year institutions experienced a 1.9 percent increase in freshmen (+18,000 to 971,000 students) while private 4-year institutions saw declines (-10,000 at each sector). There were 965,000 freshmen at community colleges, an increase of only 4,000 students (+0.5%) after three consecutive years of strong growth.
• Enrollment in Computer and Information Science programs declined across all award and institution types, ranging from -3.6 percent at undergraduate PAB institutions to -14.0 percent at the graduate level.

As someone with a lifetime in the industry, it comes as no surprise that with AI taking over many entry level jobs and depressing salaries that C&IS enrollment is down, a trend that seems likely to continue.

Worth noting that the 1.6% decline in private non-profit enrollment is a sharp turnaround from gains the previous three years and a 6.6% increase last year.  Also worth noting that freshman enrollment at highly selective private non-profits (PNPs) increased 2.0%, very competive PNPs 0.6%, while competitive PNPs saw a 1.7% decline and less selective PNPs a 3% decline. However, when looking at overall undergraduate enrollment, only highly selective PNPs *and less selective PNPs* saw increases (1.7%, 1.9% respectively) while the middle two classes saw decreases of 1.0% and 1.5%.  I can't explain why less selective schools show such a disparity in freshman and total enrollment; either they're seeing more transfers from other schools, retaining more of their students, and/or other factors are in play.

If you're wondering about the definitions for selectivity, "highly selective" means anywhere from admitting <33% to 33-50% of applicants, "very competitive" admit 50-75%, "competitive" 75-85%, and "less selective" more than 85%.

Fascinating to go through the site which is open to all (and no account registration needed). 

[mhm0417]

Great share.  Very interesting data.

[Kuiper]

I thought this interview with a DI AD was interesting, particularly this quote in bold below (which you can see before the paywall starts):

"I don't think it's controversial to estimate that there are at least 200 D-I schools that would be better off financially if they eliminated all scholarships and joined Division III."

Why "the rest" of Division I needs its own path

by Brian Barrio

I can't pinpoint the exact reason why these mid- and low-major ADs are remaining quiet — but I will tell you it is definitely NOT because everything at that level is going well. The approximately 80 percent of D-I programs that do not have multi-million dollar media deals or a taste of College Football Playoff revenue are in a state of crisis that is getting worse each year. Putting aside a small number of outliers — a few top Big East and A-10 basketball programs — these departments are hemorrhaging money after more than a decade of significant cost increases brought on by rule changes aimed (unsuccessfully) at deflecting student-athlete lawsuits.

Division I members now are under pressure to provide a level of services, scholarships and, as of this year, cash — expenses that ADs, if they could speak candidly, would say are out of tune with their programs' revenue potential. The system is unsustainable over even the medium term. Most schools have only negligible meat left on the bone in terms of ticket and corporate sponsorship revenue, and NIL fundraising asks have tested their relationships with donors. 

While wealthy supporters can be tapped repeatedly for decades to put their names on new facilities, their patience is much shorter for gifts of cash to 19-year-old athletes in one-bid basketball leagues. Relationships are challenged even more by the near-certainty that any breakout star will depart for greener pastures.

Additionally, the cost of being in Division I has gone up in a straight line since about 2012, yet the reward, the NCAA men's basketball tournament bid every school dreams will spark an explosive increase in applications and donations, still only goes to one conference member per year. In these leagues, 10 to 14 schools compete for that prize, but the ticket to play costs three times what it did 15 years ago.

I don't think it's controversial to estimate that there are at least 200 D-I schools that would be better off financially if they eliminated all scholarships and joined Division III.

After all, the power conferences operating in a completely different manner than the rest of Division I. So as the demographic cliff looms and the financial vise tightens for non-power conference schools, it would be wise to build a system that doesn't require the two divergent groups to pretend they are the same. Low- and mid-major programs must take control of their futures, acknowledge financial realities and reemphasize the things that make their programs worth the investment.

[y_jack_lok]

^^^ Thanks for sharing that. I've been wondering how those low and mid level D1 schools fit in to what's happening. I also wonder what the NCAA as a whole is going to look like as time goes on.

[Gregory Sager]

It's probably more realistic that, if these schools were to demonstrate some wise stewardship of their resources and heed the advice of Brian Barrio by vacating D1, most of them would go to D2. The ones that would go to D3 would likely be the schools that fit the majority D3 profile of small private schools, such as Furman, Canisius, High Point, Niagara, Davidson, etc. -- in other words, schools like future D3 member St. Francis (PA).

[Kuiper]

It's probably more realistic that, if these schools were to demonstrate some wise stewardship of their resources and heed the advice of Brian Barrio by vacating D1, most of them would go to D2. The ones that would go to D3 would likely be the schools that fit the majority D3 profile of small private schools, such as Furman, Canisius, High Point, Niagara, Davidson, etc. -- in other words, schools like future D3 member St. Francis (PA).

Just based on size and similarity/proximity to other D3 schools, it would probably include most of the Patriot League, Presbyterian, Mount St. Mary's (MD), Chicago State, Mercyhurst, St. Bonaventure, Robert Morris, Stonehill, LeMoyne, Saint Peters, Mississippi Valley State, Merrimack, University of Evansville

More likely, some very small DI schools could merge with other DI schools, like Queens is doing with Elon (although I think athletics are separate for now).

[Ralph Turner]

Is there a legal framework (and I will appreciate wiser voices here) for D-II to declare the association (D2) prohibits participation in D-2 activities by persons with NIL contracts?

The same for D3?

[Gregory Sager]

Just based on size and similarity/proximity to other D3 schools, it would probably include most of the Patriot League, Presbyterian, Mount St. Mary's (MD), Chicago State, Mercyhurst, St. Bonaventure, Robert Morris, Stonehill, LeMoyne, Saint Peters, Mississippi Valley State, Merrimack, University of Evansville

The interesting thing about your list is that a couple of those schools, LeMoyne and Mercyhurst, moved from D2 to D1 within the past four years.

I doubt that Chicago State or Mississippi Valley State would go D3. MVSU is a member of the SWAC, which is a D1 league of Southern-based HBCU schools (all but one of which is public), so it is currently ensconced among its peer institutions. Chicago State would have no home in D3 unless the WIAC wanted to take it in, and I'd be stunned if the WIAC gave an invite to CSU. While the C2C could (and likely would) take it in, as would be the case with MVSU as well, it's far more likely that if Chicago State drops out of D1 it will opt to join one of the D2 circuits in the upper midwest, the GLIAC or the GLVC. Or, if CSU really wants to pare down the athletics budget (and it may have no choice in that matter), the local NAIA circuit, the Chicagoland Collegiate Athletic Conference, would be the place to which the school would turn, not D3. The CCAC contains both public and private institutions.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Is there a legal framework (and I will appreciate wiser voices here) for D-II to declare the association (D2) prohibits participation in D-2 activities by persons with NIL contracts?

The same for D3?

I mean, there was a legal framework for D1 to prevent it up until there wasn't anymore.