Future of Division III

[y_jack_lok]

Johns Hopkins layoffs.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/johns-hopkins-university-lays-off-over-100-employees-cites-federal-funding-cuts-2026-06-25/

[DagarmanSpartan]

5 for 5 would be intriguing for CWRU, simply because in recent years, many top jock recruits have been "graduate" students with eligibility remaining.  This might create a larger such pool of potential jock recruits.

[Gregory Sager]

Interesting possibilities if D3 adopted the same 5/5 model:
1. as you mentioned, an increase of good D3 talent transferring to D1 and D2 schools for a graduate year.  Always fun to see that happen. Talent is talent!
2. more undergraduate schools will start graduate programs, or
3. schools with very small graduate enrollment will grow offerings to keep from "passing off" a student to another school for the 5th year.

I think it's extremely unlikely that the vast majority of D3 schools would consider #2 or #3 to be sound policies right now, given demographic challenges and the current economic climate of higher education. Masters-level graduate programs bring in only a fraction of the amount of tuition income that undergraduate programs do, unless you plan to wholesale your school's masters programs (i.e., convert them to online format and then admit remote students by the trainload, a la Liberty and Grand Canyon). This is likely going to be an era of retrenchment in U.S. higher education, not an era of expansion, with lots of schools fighting to stay healthy and lots of others just fighting to survive. And, besides, D3 schools don't prioritize the interests of athletics over the interests of the school's academic aspects in the tail-wags-the-dog fashion of D1. For that reason as well, the idea of D3 following D1 into a five-years-of-eligibility model seems unlikely, unless someone can make an effective argument that five years of athletic eligibility will lift five-year graduation rates above where they stand now under D3's current eligibility rules.

[MCScots2013]

Are you sure about that?  I see your point, but tons of schools are adding graduate courses.  Schools that were strictly undergraduate 20 years ago when I was in high school and looking around, now shock me when I see how many graduate programs they have. I'm sure there are a lot of online classes, but graduate nonetheless.

I live in Virginia, so here are some examples in the region: Roanoke, Shenandoah, Averett (seemingly online), Bridgewater, E&H, Guilford, Methodist (now has a medical school), Greensboro, Lynchburg, Piedmont, Pfeiffer--given a few more minutes I can find more.

Let's take Guilford as an example, first.  The Guilford MBA is a 12-month program, tuition is $19,800.  When prompted to go to the "Financial Aid" page, it has an overview of the unsubsidized federal loans--no mention of scholarships. Another avenue for funding is tuition reimbursement as a benefit from employers.  Schools are getting wise to that and adding these programs.  Can't say I fault them, especially if you have the same faculty and you know beforehand the money is coming in.

Here's probably a better example: Roanoke, which has two MBA options. 4+1, and online 2-year self-paced.  Not  a terrible idea.

I'm not saying it's a good idea for every small colleges to rush to do this, but faced with the numbers issues they have to do something.

 

[WUPHF]

Right, Masters degrees can be shockingly cheap to administer. The lower the rigor, the greater the adjuncts, the better.

[Gregory Sager]

Are you sure about that?  I see your point, but tons of schools are adding graduate courses.  Schools that were strictly undergraduate 20 years ago when I was in high school and looking around, now shock me when I see how many graduate programs they have. I'm sure there are a lot of online classes, but graduate nonetheless.

I live in Virginia, so here are some examples in the region: Roanoke, Shenandoah, Averett (seemingly online), Bridgewater, E&H, Guilford, Methodist (now has a medical school), Greensboro, Lynchburg, Piedmont, Pfeiffer--given a few more minutes I can find more.

Let's take Guilford as an example, first.  The Guilford MBA is a 12-month program, tuition is $19,800.  When prompted to go to the "Financial Aid" page, it has an overview of the unsubsidized federal loans--no mention of scholarships. Another avenue for funding is tuition reimbursement as a benefit from employers.  Schools are getting wise to that and adding these programs.  Can't say I fault them, especially if you have the same faculty and you know beforehand the money is coming in.

Here's probably a better example: Roanoke, which has two MBA options. 4+1, and online 2-year self-paced.  Not  a terrible idea.

I'm not saying it's a good idea for every small colleges to rush to do this, but faced with the numbers issues they have to do something.

And how many of them have started within, say, the past couple of years? That's my point.

[MCScots2013]

I think I'm genuinely missing your point, but Roanoke's MBA started in 2023 and Guilford's (and E&H's) 2022. Lynchburg, a little surprisingly, started in the mid-00s.

[Kuiper]

Regarding the 5 year proposal adopted by DI, it might be interesting to note that the possibility of DIII adopting the 5 year model is on the agenda for the NCAA's Division III Analysis Working Group 

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d3/workgrps/awg/Jun2026D3AWG_Report.pdf

During future meetings, the working group will further discuss this case study as well as
develop case studies for the following fundamental change concepts:
• Five-year (age-based) eligibility adoption – evaluate existing Division III eligibility
rules and proposed changes across other divisions. Use data to understand
eligibility trends (e.g., how many Division III student-athletes are using a fifth year,
credits students are coming into the division with, graduate programs, retention
rates, etc.), and pressure test against the division's philosophy

Student-Athlete Eligibility Data
& Trend Report
Conduct a student-eligibility data report
(tracking attrition, retention, graduation
timing, waiver volume, and credit-withholding
prevalence) and produce a trend report to
inform future eligibility policy decisions —
including any reconsideration of the four-year
framework or competition trigger standard.

Consider New Standards /
Re-Evaluate Competition Trigger
Evaluate moving from 4 seasons in 10
semesters to a 5-year framework, and
separately reopen whether competition
(not practice) should trigger the eligibility
clock

Another item on the agenda that could be of interest is rethinking the the automatic qualification process and how it might be perversely affecting conference affiliations and travel/expenses:

Rethink championships automatic qualification – address unintended conference
behavior driven by AQ requirements. Preserve championship access by identifying
opportunities for stability and cost savings to reshape conference realignments
decisions for AQ access that may result in inefficient, unstable membership
outcomes. 

[AndrewB]

Don't see the 5/5 passing in D3.  Why would this pass but redshirting fail less than 6 months ago?  Small private schools will be at a disadvantage for 5/5.  Just like they were for redshirting. 

The problem now is all 3 divisions are completely different.
D1. -> 5/5.  With age restrictions?
D2.  -> REDSHIRTING
D3. -> 4 Years at any age.  Didn't a 40 year old go out for football recently?

A problem for the WIAC.  Some coaches want players to gray shirt because they won't get any playing time.  But the player wants to play and hopes to play D1 football his 5th year.  Players wants to use up the 4 years at D3 and then use 1 year at D1. It's going to cause some headache for higher level recruit's in D3.

[Gregory Sager]

I think I'm genuinely missing your point, but Roanoke's MBA started in 2023 and Guilford's (and E&H's) 2022. Lynchburg, a little surprisingly, started in the mid-00s.

The point is that the aforementioned crisis in higher education is of very recent vintage.

[AndrewB]

And about the automatic bids.
Keep them the way they are now.
Reward the small conference's in D3. A team like Lakeland WI, will Never win the D3 championship.  But It can win it's conference.  Just like in basketball, let them enjoy and be part of the playoffs.  My grip is 8 more teams should be added.
Protect the top 16 from Playing in the first round. Have 16 games week 1 (17-48), and 16 games week 2. 
 

[Kuiper]

And about the automatic bids.
Keep them the way they are now.
Reward the small conference's in D3. A team like Lakeland WI, will Never win the D3 championship.  But It can win it's conference.  Just like in basketball, let them enjoy and be part of the playoffs.  My grip is 8 more teams should be added.
Protect the top 16 from Playing in the first round. Have 16 games week 1 (17-48), and 16 games week 2. 
 

I may be wrong, but I don't think the issue was on the agenda for the point of eliminating them necessarily.  I suspect it's about reducing the incentives for schools to switch conferences (which might increase travel costs etc) because of concerns about college closures or moves leaving schools in conferences with below the minimum number of schools to receive an automatic bid.  They also suggested investigating the NPI and its effect on conference movement (and presumably on scheduling expensive non-conference games to make up for weak conference NPI scores).

[AndrewB]

And about the automatic bids.
Keep them the way they are now.
Reward the small conference's in D3. A team like Lakeland WI, will Never win the D3 championship.  But It can win it's conference.  Just like in basketball, let them enjoy and be part of the playoffs.  My grip is 8 more teams should be added.
Protect the top 16 from Playing in the first round. Have 16 games week 1 (17-48), and 16 games week 2. 
 

I may be wrong, but I don't think the issue was on the agenda for the point of eliminating them necessarily.  I suspect it's about reducing the incentives for schools to switch conferences (which might increase travel costs etc) because of concerns about college closures or moves leaving schools in conferences with below the minimum number of schools to receive an automatic bid.  They also suggested investigating the NPI and its effect on conference movement (and presumably on scheduling expensive non-conference games to make up for weak conference NPI scores).

The only solution to these problems is to let more teams in the playoffs.  Every team will try to help themselves with scheduling and conference alignment.  Look at Lake Forest a few years ago.  That's the goal of many teams, just do enough to get the best results.  I figure this is going to be called the UMHB rule.

[Ron Boerger]

"More teams in the playoffs" would add significant travel/hotel/per diem costs that the Division would have to fund as well as possibly add another week to playoff timelines.  The former is a non-starter when NCAA D3 is already spending what it takes in with basically zero chance of significant increase, the latter would be objectionable to at least some members.

[Kuiper]

And about the automatic bids.
Keep them the way they are now.
Reward the small conference's in D3. A team like Lakeland WI, will Never win the D3 championship.  But It can win it's conference.  Just like in basketball, let them enjoy and be part of the playoffs.  My grip is 8 more teams should be added.
Protect the top 16 from Playing in the first round. Have 16 games week 1 (17-48), and 16 games week 2. 
 

I may be wrong, but I don't think the issue was on the agenda for the point of eliminating them necessarily.  I suspect it's about reducing the incentives for schools to switch conferences (which might increase travel costs etc) because of concerns about college closures or moves leaving schools in conferences with below the minimum number of schools to receive an automatic bid.  They also suggested investigating the NPI and its effect on conference movement (and presumably on scheduling expensive non-conference games to make up for weak conference NPI scores).

The only solution to these problems is to let more teams in the playoffs.  Every team will try to help themselves with scheduling and conference alignment.  Look at Lake Forest a few years ago.  That's the goal of many teams, just do enough to get the best results.  I figure this is going to be called the UMHB rule.

There are probably some incremental moves that they could contemplate, such as providing even more flexibility for conferences that dip below the minimum numbers to avoid schools moving in anticipation of a crisis. They could also limit numbers per conference just as easily as increasing them, which makes moving to the conference that regularly gets a bunch of slots less attractive. This is all very speculative, though, because the report doesn't even fully articulate the issue they are seeking to address.