Some misguided sports psychologist studied a soccer team and a tennis team and came to the following conclusion:
Division I athletes wanted to win, but those playing in Division III wanted to make friends.
I think all of us here know that’s not true. Thankfully, Division III has a sports psychologist of its own: St. Thomas men’s basketball assistant coach John Tauer. He wrote a response to this blog:
The majority of Division III athletes I have coached or coached against are highly motivated by many factors, not just making friends. one of those factors is competition — individuals and teams in Division III work incredibly hard. Division III athletes are not on athletic scholarships. As a result, they may actually have higher levels of intrinsic motivation than their Division I and II counterparts.
While this is certainly preaching to the choir, I still think it’s worth passing along. I think it’s important to highlight and debunk every misconception about Division III athletics, every time possible.
What is the link to that journal/blog so we can respond, too?
I agree… would like to put in my two cents. That statement is pretty unbelievable…
Found it:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/who-we-are/200909/new-sports-psychology
This may not be the original post that was cited by Pat (I don’t see the UST coach’s comments) but it looks like it may be the original post where the supposed “results” were posted.
Oops. This is Coach Tauer’s column.
Dr. Reiss has posted another column attempting to explain away his mischaracterization of Division III by, in part, blaming the blog format which requires him to write a teaser.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/who-we-are/200911/intrinsic-motivation-is-multifaceted
(Never mind that the mischaracterization was also repeated in the blog post itself, which has no such format restriction.)
The blog post after mine on the first column seems to have been written masterfully by “one of ours”.
A google search shows John Gleich to be a member of the outstanding UWSP national championship teams from 2004 and 2005.
His response to Dr Reiss was a proverbial “slam dunk” that may have shattered a virtual backboard somewhere on the Internet.
The headline this “expert” used was all about pushing interest in his piece, with no regard for its implications. You could take the same flawed research he did and use it as an indictment of Division I athletes as being “more likely to cheat” (win-at-all-costs), closer to being professional, and less in-line with the missions of higher education.
To spin it that way, you COULD say the news here isn’t that “Division III athletes want to make friends,” but that Division I athletes care ONLY about winning and not about the greater experience of playing collegiate sports and how it shapes their lives.
Frankly, his choice of “teaser” headline makes it no surprise that he is connected to Ohio State. It trivializes the greater value in college sports and validates the BCS model of athletics.
Interesting that Dr. Reiss plugs his next speaking engagement at Franklin College. That would be a D-III school, right? I hope all the Grizzly student-athletes can get their “friends” together and attend.
Thinking about this more, I would like to know what actual questions were asked in this study. I think there is a big difference between what motivates you to play organized sports to begin with and what motivates you during a competition.* I have no doubt that when the contest begins, and at practices, that Division III athletes are “playing to win the game.” The idea that they may have more well-rounded motivations for choosing to play to begin with and can see the bigger picture reflects positively on the Division III model.
The notion that because Division III athletes may or may not choose to participate for greater reasons other than to simply play for a winner, they somehow don’t care whether they win or lose is incredibly flawed logic.
===
*Hey, I play pick-up basketball for fun and exercise, but even I want to win when I’m playing. Otherwise, we wouldn’t keep score.
I guess Randolph-Macon didn’t make too many friends at AU the other night. Maybe they didn’t get the memo.
This is certainly stating the obvious, but the main thing that distinguishes most D3 athletes from D1 athletes is that the D3 athletes aren’t good enough to play at D1 schools. Otherwise, it seems to me that they would be no different in degree of competitiveness, desire to win, etc. I’m sure many D3 athletes would love to have the talent to play at D1 schools and get the full-ride scholarships. I doubt many athletes capable of playing at the D1 level say that they would rather go to a D3 school so they can make friends.
I also think Pat makes a good point at the very beginning in noting that the psychologist studied a D3 soccer team and a D3 tennis team. He also studied a D1 baseball team and a D1 golf team. Would the findings have been any different if he had studied football players, basketball players, wrestlers, swimmers, track and field, volleyball etc., etc.? Also, did he include women in his study? Would there be a whole different set of results for women than for men?
All-in-all an interesting topic.
I just want to clarify this statement in my post above: “I doubt many athletes capable of playing at the D1 level say that they would rather go to a D3 school so they can make friends.”
What I really meant to say is that I suppose there are a few athletes capable of competing at the D1 level who choose to go to D3 schools because they prefer the D3 philosophy.