Two years ago, a package of reforms was passed in Division III, eliminating redshirting and shortening preseason practice schedules along with other measures. However, this month, some of those proposals are back on the table for reinstatement, and the voting population could be very different.
In 2004, school presidents and chancellors made up more of the voting body than ever before, but this year, it will probably be back to business as usual, with athletic directors making the votes on behalf of their institutions.
John Fry, president of Franklin & Marshall, told Inside Higher Ed, “2004 was a step forward. If we don’t see that same level of presidential involvement, those gains will be lost.â€
The online publication looks deep into this topic.
The article gives good insight as to why the changes were made in Division III rules in 2004. I think the fact that there was a large amount of college presidents voting on resolutions two years ago is a major reason that those actions were taken. I don’t think that redshirts were abused when they were still allowed several years ago, and I don’t know why an administrator wouldn’t want a dedicated student athelete to stay around for a fifth year at their institution. I know from my own experience that the reduction in summer practice time is not better than the previous system. I think that athletic directors have a better understanding than most college presidents about what is best for a division III student athelete, and I hope that some of the restrictions that appear unfriendly to players, coaches, and programs will be rescinded.
Personally, I’m glad to see that the proposal to reinstate redshirts has a slim chance at best.
The interesting part of the article to me is the inquiry regarding the role of the Presidents at the NCAA. Given that college presidents generally have a decreasing role in the academics of their institutions and an increasing role in the fundraising of their institutions, I believe the Presidents still should be the chief focus of the NCAA. Sure, ADs have hands-on experience as to what goes on in the programs, and should be the ones doing the day-to-day NCAA management, but NCAA policy should be shaped by the Presidents. They’re the ones that have to go back to donors if the football team tanks. They’re the ones who are wine-ing and dining the donors after the basketball game. The ADs are the caretakers of the instituional programs. It makes no sense to give the ADs more power than the Presidents inside the NCAA– in essence, it makes the ADs the Presidents of their schools then!
Handing policy over to the ADs and just trust their judgment about proposals that have the ability to force the schools to move in the direction the ADs want, without any other review is, in my mind, handing the ADs a blank check and putting the pen in their fingers.
What Reforms? I think the last rules were not positive. Most college students go to school for 5 years to graduate. As a UW-Platteville fan, and alumni, Most of our athletes major in Engineering or other Technical fields. Not allowing redshirts only shortens the playing career of most FB players. The first year, they practice Too short in the Preseason, due to the new rules and ride the bench. many are cut , and told to grayshirt, working out with the team in the off-season. Let us be honest and let the men get better while being on the Roster. I would also suggest no team have more then 120 players on the Roster. In the WIAC. we are limited to 100, which is too few. On the other hand, teams like Mount Union, St johns, and Augustana can have as many players as they want. This is an unfair advantage. Thanks for reading and God Bless you!
I must respectfully disagree with the whole idea of College Presidents running the policy of NCAA Division III. Firstly they are already represented in the Presidents Council. Secondly they pay an AD good money to represent them and the college. If that isn’t the case they need another AD.
I think I agree with you for the most part UWPCJ…Redshirting is not a bad idea, and it shouldn’t be assumed that all student atheletes only go to school for 4 years. My wife went to school for more than 4 years, but got a 3.5 GPA in chemistry…a feet that many people couldn’t pull off, especially while playing a collegiate sport. Maybe most people graduate college in 4 years, but for those who take longer, why should they be denied the opportunity to play a sport in their 5th year, assuming they have not used up 4 season of eligibility.
I don’t think that a roster limit is needed though. If an institution’s football program is successful enough to attract a larger amount of recruits, and they agree to make the sacrifice to supply equipment to all of those students, than that should be allowed. If a student desires so much to be the 121st player for a winning program, than that is a decision that I feel they should be allowed to make. If Mount Union is able to recruit 150 student atheletes for their football program than they should have the opporunity to let those kids be a part of the team. Those kids make the choice to be a player who doesn’t get a gameday number, but still part of the program instead of having a chance to play at a school with maybe 80 players. D3 athletics should be about the student athelete, and not making money like in some D1 programs. That means providing as many opportunities as possible to youmg men and women who want to compete athletically, regardless of their ability.
Why does the WIAC limit the roster to 100 players? The enrollment to many of the members is much greater than most of the D3 schools across the country. I always thought it was an unfair advantage to have a student pool of 5000-7000 students. This is way out of whack compared to schools that only have enrollments of 2000 and fewer. It really limits a student athletes opportunies in their home state. It is almost saying that if you are a football player we don’t really want you to come to our school so pick someplace else to go outside of WI. I would think the administration would want as many students as possible, even if they do play football. It isn’t costing the school any more money because they aren’t giving scholarships. Is it the cost of equipment? I don’t think so.
It is funny when UWPCJ77 thinks it is unfair to have 180 players at St John’s or Mt Union when they have enrollments that are in that 2000 student range. UWW managed to find 100 able bodied players this year. They still only allowed 55 (not sure of the exact number) on the playoff roster so it doesn’t really come into play as much as you would think.
Of course Johnnies are glad to see that redshirting probably has a slim chance to be reinstated. They have to back up their hall of fame coach who basically got rid of it.
If you read the voting results from the reforms two years ago, the WIAC unanimously voted in favor of getting rid of redshirts. That particular reform proposal did not come from the MIAC (I believe the IIAC had a part in it, though). So singling out Gags for getting rid of it is a bit misguided, though I know he campaigned against redshirts for years.
From what I understand, approximately 10% of D3 institutions are public (students tend to be in and out in 5+ years), and 90% are private (students generally are out in 4). Should D3 allow redshirts, then, for the good of the 10%, who already have lower tuition and more students (by and large) than their private majority?
The WIAC limits its rosters to 100 as a conference rule, not as a D3 rule. The rule is in place, as I understand it, to control costs of the football program, and have some parity within the programs of the conference (so UWW and UWL don’t have 300 players leaving UWEC or UWSP with 80). Should all of D3 have to suffer for the plight of the WIAC’s own decision? By way of extension, the MWC coaches cannot recruit off campus by conference rule– should that be extended too?
70sraider- I can agree to disagree with you– my point is that the Presidents are responsible to the school’s alumni/trustees, while the AD is responsible to some higher-up administrator. If the President chooses to send the AD, so be it; but encouraging Presidents to do so does not make sense to me to formulate policy.
You are an informed and intelligent Blog. The only reason UWW had 55 players at Salem was the WIAC travel rule. Again, ridiculous. Often you have 4 or 5 injuries and run out of players at certain positions. Reshirting should always be up to the player, regardless of the cost to the player or institution.The WIAC limited Rosters to 100 for both competion and costs.I dpo not agree and have complained to my AD and coach. I can understand all of the perspectives on roaster size, I just think 100 overall and 55 traveling is very poor. God Bless you all!
The NCAA has the playoff roster limitation in this situation, not WIAC or UWW. Their rule is 52 players on the roster, which must be finalized 10 minutes before kickoff.
Thank you for the Salem correction.
One can only hope that the majority of the institutions take back control of DIII and it’s mission from the narrow special interests and the showboating of F&M President Fry. Thankfully Fry will rotate off the Presidents Council soon and maybe he can find some other Resume stuffing activity.
The only valid arguments are ones that are absent of any us/them rhetoric. It’s not about what’s good for the majority but whats good for DIII.
I think the President of Chapman University had it right when his AD called him about the Redshirt proposition. Confused because the Presidents Council was for it and the Student/Athelete Advisory Council was against it, he said “Listen to the Students.”
Redshirting is a good thing
My response to president Fry would be “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Abuses should be handled by the NCAA as is other matters. We have enough demagogs, let’s not encourage others.