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.”
The online publication looks deep into this topic.
I took a look at the web site of the College Sports Project –
http://www.collegesportsproject.org/index.html
It has 130 members – all DIII. The core of the group are the following conferences:
UAA (all 8 schools are members)
NCAC (10/10)
NESCAC (11/11)
Centennial (11/11)
ODAC (11/12)
NEWMAC (7/10)
Midwest (7/10)
No CCIW or WIAC schools are members. I think this is a real divide in DIII. I believe the CSP schools were the ones who pushed the reforms. The group is funded by the Mellon foundation. Don Randel, the president of the University of Chicago, is leaving UofC to become president of the Mellon foundation so you can expect the support to continue.
Are we seeing what may become a split in DIII? The CSP includes most of the more academically prestigious schools in DIII. Do they want to split away from the rest?
FWIW, Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW) is a member. No other CCIW or WIACs are, though.
Add to that 6 of 10 from the SCAC (no DePauw, no RHIT, no Oglethorpe, no Hendrix).
I missed IWU. There were no summary statistics on members by conference so I went through the list and counted. The SCIAC has 6 of 8 as members. I was going to comment on the splits in conferences. The SCAC surprised me – particularly the non-members.
In the MIAA, only 3 of 10 are members (Albion, Hope, St. Mary’s). Does that mean Adrian, Alma, Calvin, et al have a different view of intercollegiate athletics? Or have they not gotten around to joining yet? What about Capital, the only OAC member (of 10) in the CSP? Are the NCAC and OAC fundamentally different conferences that occupy the same geographic space?
When the UAA and NCAC announced their football scheduling agreement, all the comments were similar to those of Denison’s president Dale Knobel, “As important, it creates an alliance between strong academic institutions which share a commitment to enrolling student athletes whose participation in sport supports their pursuit of academic excellence and provides avenues of personal challenge and growth. We in the NCAC are pleased to forge another connection with UAA institutions already partners in a variety of academic initiatives.”
You can read the entire announcement at: http://www.northcoast.org/news/ncacuaafb.html
You can read a lot into that comment. Maybe too much. But it leads me to see an emerging divide in DIII.
Continuing on the subject, will this lead to the realignment of conferences (where geographically possible)? Is that the reason for the formation of the new conference that Catholic, Goucher, et al are forming?
You can read Catholic’s announcemtn here:
http://publicaffairs.cua.edu/news/06AthleticConferenceRelease.htm
Interesting paragaraph from that announcement:
In a joint statement, presidents of the above institutions outlined the purpose and character of the new conference:
“In forming an affiliation with this new conference, we have affirmed a shared focus on institutional excellence that emphasizes our academic mission and a belief that athletics competition is an important component of the undergraduate experience.”
Does that mean the other schools in the CAC do not share that concept of an academic mission?
It’s not really “6 of 8” in the SCIAC, either. The SCIAC is a bit of an odd duck, in a lot of ways. Two of the teams in the SCIAC are actually composite teams from multiple colleges: Pomona-Pitzer athletes come from Pomona College or Pitzer College, both of which are members of the CSP. The Stages and Athenas of Claremont-Mudd-Scripps come from three schools, as the hyphens suggest: Claremont McKenna College, Scripps College (both CSP members), and Harvey Mudd College (not in the CSP.) When you tally up the conference membership, you see that they’re split just about down the middle, with Caltech and Occidental joining Pomona, Pitzer, Claremont, and Scripps on the CSP side, and Redlands, Whittier, LaVerne, Cal Lutheran, and (interestingly) Harvey Mudd not being members.
Anyone who is familiar with these colleges knows that there’s a broad range of attitudes about the balance of athletics with academics within the group, as well as a wide range of, shall we say, academic standards. If there is a D3/D4 split coming down the pike, it will be very interesting to see what becomes of the geographically isolated SCIAC. Chapman and UC Santa Cruz could be added to fill expand the D3 group to 6 (assuming Mudd goes with its teammates Claremont McKenna and Scripps to D4), and maybe a couple of local NAIAs could switch to D3, but the D4 contingent (Caltech, Pomona, et alia) would be hard-pressed to find any like-minded brethren withing 500 miles. Maybe we’d see a return to the one-team-per-college days?
“Are the NCAC and OAC fundamentally different conferences that occupy the same geographic space?”
The answer to this question is a fairly resounding “yes.” The fundamentally different approaches to the question of athletics is the very reason the NCAC came into existence, taking the bulk of its charter membership from the OAC. This difference is often mischaracterized as the dreaded “academic card,” but really it’s just two valid but significantly different approaches to the vexing problem of athletics in the academic setting.
We have an alliterative aphorism in Texas that deals with the assessments by the “elites” of their personal attributes, i.e., they think that “their feces have no odor”.
If you cannot beat someone at a particular talent or skill, then re-define your frame of reference. “I cannot beat Mount Union in football, so I won’t play post-season games”.
D-III is non-scholarship student-athletes. These are people who are seeking an education and enjoying athletic competition. The colleges have usurped/co-opted/adopted amateur athletics in America. The AAU is a shadow of its mid-20th century self.
The education “lobby” in society has tried to formalize all teaching functions into its domains. The professions, the labor/business “guilds” even the technical trades all have at least Bachelor’s Degree. “Ya gotta have your degree!” Now that these educational institutions are bringing people with various intelligences (see Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences, including body-kinesthetic, musical, spatial, et al.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences
into the realm of intercollegiate athletics, and the “elite” schools among this group are not winning as many national championships!
Gee, it is just another dimension of diversity, isn’t it? As long as the student-athlete passes the prescribed curriculum and is a good citizen, why should someone discriminate against or limit the exposition of their skills?
Would complete adherence to this principle by the CSP be the non-participation in national intercollegiate piano competitions, debate or chess matches?
I see so many first-generation students who are fulfilling their dreams. Their accomplishments are “unheard of” in their families and backgrounds. America has always sought to define itself by unparalleled excellence. The standard is admirable and is the basis for a national championship or even the Olympic Games.
I tend to root for the underdog, so I guess this is just my rant.
Ralph:
Shame on you for “euphemizing” what Texans actually say about those who think they are better than the rest of us.The original (and strict-constuctionist) wording packs far more punch and is far more accurate. 😉
I don’t think the problem is that the elite schools are not competitive. Last year, 6 of the top 10 teams in the Sears Cup standings were members of the CSP – including the top 4. (1. Williams (NESCAC) 2. Middlebury (NESCAC) 3. Washington (UAA) 4. Trinity (SCAC) 8. Emory (UAA) 9. Amherst (NESCAC). WIlliams has won the cup nine of the past ten years.
In the current standings, the 8 UAA schools have a toal of 832 points (average of 104). The ten NESCAC schools have 1,023 points (102). The WIAC’s nine schools have a total of 790 points (88 average).
And this is not just in “minor” sports. Williams won the men’s hoops title a couple of years ago. Rochester has won titles and gotten to the last two final fours. There are 4 UAA women’s teams in the top 20.
The web site for the Sears Directors Cup is: http://nacda.collegesports.com/directorscup/nacda-directorscup-current-scoring.html
Middlebury (a very “elite,” self-proclaimed or actual) venue) isn’t too shabby when it comes to men’s and women’s ice hockey championships. In New England, ice hockey counts as a major sport, no matter what the rest of D3 might say. 🙂
martin, there are some “elite” schools who have excelled at attracting outstanding student-athletes in the D3 model. It may not be exclusively Williams who is clamoring.
One problem that I have with the Directors Cup is the valuation system. They give 100 points to the Champion of Field Hockey in which 160 schools participate, 50 points to Women’s Ice Hockey Champion in which 54 schools participate, and only 100 points to the Champion of Women’s Basketball in which over 400 schools participate, two and one-half times as many schools as field hockey and nearly 8 times as many as ice hockey. I would propose a proportional allocation of points by the number of teams which you defeat in each championships.
Let me elaborate on the proportional valuation of scoring for the Directors Cup.
Divide the number of participants in a particular sport by the number of active D3 members to get a participants’ coefficent. Multiply the Directors Cup point allocation by that coefficient to get the number of points allocated toward Cup Standings.
That would value the championships of the respective teams by awarding more points to those teams that defeated more competitors.