Division III Forum ? Membership Responses

GENERAL DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. The Division III Philosophy Statement articulates a unique role for athletics to play in higher education. Have we allowed athletics to receive greater emphasis to the detriment of the student-athlete?s overall academic experience and our educational mission? If so, what should be done to regain the proper balance?

? More students are interested in athletic participation and are coming to college with an expectation of participation over most of the year. (8) The question is how do you strengthen athletics? ability to promote academic excellence. The core of achieving this goal could be respect.

? The philosophy is appropriate and sound, as it currently exists, it is not out of balance. (11) The villain is growing competition (locally, regionally, and nationally) that is driving institutions to sometimes forget the philosophy. (4) The solution is regular education of our CEOs, and others about the significance of this philosophy/mission. When you look at the academic profile of student-athletes, they meet or exceed that of non-athletes. (4) So, the academic experience has not suffered. (6) We need to listen to the students more about their desires.

? Constant pressure from student-athletes to increase non-traditional seasons (3) and red shirting. See what is happening in other places, often role model is DI (2) ? goal is always a championship, which is the measure of success. (8)

? Institutional autonomy. (5)

? Specialization is increasing: 1-sport athletes, multi-sport athletes are decreasing. (5)

? Strive for proper balance; part of the academic and educational process is not only what goes on in the classroom. (3) Of equal importance is the development of social and life related skills. Some of these skills and the educational process are accomplished through athletic competition.

? ?Game of Life? fallacy ? doesn?t represent DIII (4)

? Sports are not only out of whack in Division III but in our whole society. People are out of control with sports including parents, fans and athletes. Young children are already forced into single sports. (2)

? Mission of schools is to mold kids into the best they can be. Parents are expecting greater emphasis. (2)

? Reality does not reflect the spirit of the Philosophy of Division III. (2)

? Further limit the present non-traditional season. (2)

? There are on-going debates within conferences that discuss the restrictions that are appropriate during the non-traditional segment. (2)

? Using athletics as a recruiting tool for school choice. (2) If you limit athletics students will go elsewhere. (2)

? Expectation of what schools should provide to Student-Athletes regarding athletics opportunities has increased stemming from their needs coming out of high school.

? The Division III philosophy is still the guiding principle, but winning national championships has become the goal.

? Single philosophy cannot hold true for all schools. Division III is too diverse to standardize everything.

? Decisions are not always made in the best interest of the student.

? AQ process increases participation in the championship experience, a detriment to the balance of academics/athletics.

? Academics depend on institutions.

? Some conferences are trying to limit competition only on weekends.

? The Division is centered in certain areas of the country ? some areas can?t compete in such widely spread regions.

? Division III led by Management and President Councils, not the actual schools.

ž If you give a standard to athletics should it also be extended to other departments in an institution? (2)

ž Who (or where) in this country does this concern exist? Who really believes that student-athletes are suffering academically or that they are detrimental to the academic mission of the colleges?

ž Do National Championships take away from philosophy?

ž Are the values that we preach being implemented and practiced in reality? (Nationally)

ž Does the philosophy statement need to be revised and updated?

2. It is likely that significant differences of opinion will continue to exist regarding many of these issues. In that light, should we attempt to address and resolve the issues for the division as a whole, or should we consider solutions (e.g., subdivision) that will permit subsets of the membership to address their concerns and interests more directly?

• Remain status quo but look into legislation to address the issue and not subdivision. (8)

• Don?t want to subdivide. (6) The subsets within Division are different on different issues. (2) Subdivision may not eliminate confusion and subsets of disagreements, but will create more problems. (2) Initiatives for subdivision should be explored to see if there is sufficient support of those who are dissatisfied. Should stay in the same Division but modify and govern all issues in as strict a manner as possible; take control back. (6) Should consider solutions that will permit subsets of the membership to address their concerns and interests more directly. Subdivisions would move away from the Division III philosophy. Conferences would be split. (2)

• May be two or three different philosophies in Division III. (2) Evidenced by the varying number of sport-sponsored throughout the division and the wide range of resources within it. (2) Not recognizing these as inherent differences is unrealistic; Division III is very diverse and very large. (6)

• The levels of playing fields are not and will not be the same (5)

• Arms race if team A is doing it, we have to do it (moves away from philosophy) (4)

• Need something to bring schools together, underlying belief system (2 divisions = 2 philosophies) (3)

• Subdivision needs to be considered for the benefit of those institutions that will never compete with the ?upper? half of the division. (2) Concerns were raised as to what happens once institutions want to transition to the values/philosophies of the counter subdivisions and geographic (e.g. travel) location as well ? eventually Division III might be exactly where we are now.

• Issue is restrictive vs. less restrictive (2): e.g. recruiting, red shirting. Talk of reconfiguring conferences as places for more restrictive rules. (No support for subdivision.)

• Conferences should be united because they got together for the same reasons. Solves problems as conferences as opposed to as a Division. (2)

• Subdivision will have unintended consequences. Possible recruiting advantage for schools that don?t have restrictions on season. (2) Some schools might be forced to appear less academic.

• AQs appear to have forced conference/regional play to be too important. (2)

• Financial Aid audit necessary (2). Crux of problem is money.

• Division III is becoming too large, divided based on differences in philosophy.

• If you subdivide you are creating more competition. Some schools don?t want to be as competitive. Small schools are opposed to subdivision. Their goal is to win conference and play in the regional, but with subdivision would come greater access to Championships.

• As a Division III Student-Athlete you have a choice to go to more competitive or less competitive school.

• Approve self-selection, if go to subdivisions.

• Know why we would split the division and be very clear what the answer is prior to driving into a ?black hole.?

• There is a mistrust of administrators, other colleges doing ?illegal? things ? stretching the envelope.

• Subdivision is likely necessary because the Division III membership will not reach consensus.

• Length of season, number of contests and non-traditional seasons seem to be major differences. Do you want more two-, three-sport athletes or more athletes that focus on just one sport.

• Selling Division III is already difficult and two divisions (subdivisions) would make it even more difficult.

• Regular-season competition could be affected with subdivision.

• To much emphasis on national championships.

• True mission must be academic in Division III. (Proposal 41 and 41-1 are good)

• Separation of those institutions that want to achieve regional goals and those wanting to achieve national goals.

• Concern that issue is being pushed from top ? down. (Outside influences) Address the ?bad? issues in Division III versus jumping into subdivision.

• Universities have the choice to run their athletic programs as they choose. Don?t deny the haves because they have made a commitment to their athletic programs. Small universities with limited resources win championships all the time, let conferences address their concerns and dictate their management within the NCAA guidelines.

ž Don?t know the problem: what?s wrong? (2)

ž Awarding of Merit Scholarship? (2) Basis/Criteria

ž Not ready to subdivide, but Division III is off track (some similarities to DI); do we really put student-athletes first?

ž Are championships driving the separate division theory?

ž What is appropriate for the Division? (This question appears to be driving force for a possible subdivision.

ž How big an issue is money? (Are schools with large endowments driving it?)

ž Is there something in the middle?

General Comments:

There needs to be acceptance of the uniqueness of the Division and its conferences and institutions as the most critical factor. We should not try to model ourselves after other divisions or models or visions. We need to better understand who we are, what are our goals, and hopefully reaffirm our mission through autonomous action.

If a division of Division III is inevitable due to the mere size of the Division as well as the differing philosophy between becoming more restrictive vs. becoming less restrictive. The table suggests that the models are thrown out the window and all possibilities are put into the discussion for the membership to pick and choose which things are best for them to generate a response from which to establish new models.

No subdivision ? fix problem internally

Say we want individual autonomy. Creating a subdivision pairs like-minded institutions together. This is exactly why conferences exist. We need to be true to our philosophy statement. If our focus is on Championships lets make our philosophy statement say this instead of hiding behind something else.

While the Division III philosophy seems to be a crucial element in all of these questions, I believe when the issues are discussed, our philosophy is rarely driving the decision. Too often, Championships rather than the education of our student-athletes is a priority. It was disappointing that the discussion was too specific to legislation and championship and subdivision rather than on our philosophical differences. A longer discussion at the round table would have been much more helpful. The presentation planted ?bad seeds? in the minds of too many disengaged administrators who don?t yet have a firm grasp of these topics. It would have been helpful to lead with the Division III philosophy statement which unfortunately I don?t believe half the room could articulate. Wish that

members of the dais, especially the student-athletes who were on the Management Council, had engaged in the discussion.

Some of what is driving our future is the arms race to continue to win and succeed. I say this because regardless of what is taken away when a student-athlete competes, by nature alone competes to win, not lose.

Just because institution is good at sports does not mean that education is suffering.

If philosophies are so different, maybe subdivision is feasible, but are the philosophies that different?

SPECIFIC SUBGROUP QUESTIONS

FINANCIAL AID

The prohibition against athletically related financial aid is a cornerstone of the Division III philosophy. Should the prohibition be retained or loosened?

? No discussion, the rule stays, it needs to be monitored and enforced. (7) The prohibition must be retained (10) and better enforced (6) Clarify the philosophy with efforts such as the audit/assessment. (8)

? Status quo (3)

? Against athletically related financial aid. (4) It would break down the Division III philosophy. (3) A change to offer aid would be a greater cause for subdivision.

? Merit-based aid (2)

? NCAA should stay away from this issue and preserve institutional autonomy.

? Strong belief in the Division III philosophy and how it separates us from the other divisions.

? Greatest area of mistrust within Division III. Morality issue ? those who do the right thing should not have to be further regulated.

? Currently there is no enforcement of financial aid, no self-auditing, no self-reporting, all of which is a major problem.

? Should not be allowed to fund above need.

? Suggestion of giving athletic-related scholarships

? Admission standard (recruiting or not). Some have more money to give, preferential to athletes. Audit won?t help (2), institutional autonomy (need better ways to track aid for athletes. Make sure athletic aid given is consistent for athlete and non-athlete.

? Increase the membership dues and have the NCAA do the audit. Random ?external? audit.

ž How do you regulate institutions that tell student-athletes they will top the package of another institution?

ELIGIBILITY AND RECRUITING

Division III eligibility and recruiting rules traditionally have been minimal, in deference to institutional and conference autonomy. Should more restrictive rules be adopted to better ensure that the academic and demographic profile of student-athletes at each school more closely resembles that of its nonstudent-athletes?

? No (3), diversity is a valued characteristic of school. A big failure of ?The Game of Life? was the authors? unwillingness to understand the role that athletics can play in diversity.

? Maintain current recruiting rule. (3)

? NCAA should stay away from this issue and preserve institutional autonomy.(2)

? Difficult issue because of diversity of schools. (2) Recruiting limitations would hurt ?non-elite? schools. Challenges are different for the ?non-elite.? (2)

? Surprised at talk of ?dead? periods or limitations of recruiting. (2)

? Generally a consensus that the Student-Athletes are not different from general population. (2)

? Somewhat interested in ?dead periods,?(2) might be helpful to coaches and student-athlete. Coaches are extension of admission office at many schools. (2) In some cases 1/3 of recruits are athletes. Discussion on the selectivity of many schools.

? Go where Division I goes, not good; about finding best fit; teach, coach and then recruit; student-athlete welfare to keep from being obnoxious to prospect; some like to see coaches at games; there are rules in place but not followed; institutional autonomy needs to be followed; need to be ?in a kid?s house? to recruit them (2); Philosophy is a myth ? except for scholarships, all else driving program is like Division I and II; no clearing house lowers academics; non-traditional strains facilities and staff; need to recruit is too large; institutional limits needed to solve these problems; we don?t recruit dance and chemistry majors off campus ? all through normal admissions procedures; no multi-sport programs allowed.

? Active recruiting helps some schools stay in business. Recruiting should stay on campus (2) and they still do well but they have name recognition and prime location and no state school competition. Name recognition could help in recruiting so ?no? named schools do have a problem with getting athletes.

? Status Quo. Institutions should do a better job of setting policy and procedures and policing their staffs with regard to recruiting. Admissions ?recruit? students to get the best; athletics teams should equally be able to recruit athletes

? These types of rules (related to academic standards) go far beyond athletics and might be better served by being determined by each institution. If institution can graduate a student-athlete, they shouldn?t have requirements on how to do it.

? Stay, as is, conference/institution autonomy. Practice or competition count on season. Final term ? possible minimize number of hours.

? Need honest recruiting. It?s okay to take a chance on students ? not specifically athletes.

? Back to geographic diversity ? traveling is a must in places like the west. Recruiting is an essential right, not recruiting is elitist.

? Full-time and Part-time coaches responsibilities.

? All suspicious of other schools ? but unwilling to prescribe a solution.

? Red shirting is a big issue.

? Eligibility is meaningless because academics can be completely different from one school to another. Eligibility should be dealt with at the conference level. It should be off the list. This issue should stay with institution not NCAA.

? Need to set standard for initial eligibility.

? Oppose ?dead period?

ž Is this question a direct result of the ?Game of Life? book?

PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS

The portion of the philosophy statement calling for schools to maximize the number and variety of competitive opportunities has been interpreted to justify the expansion of competitive opportunities during the traditional and nontraditional playing season and to defeat efforts to further limit those competitive opportunities. To what extent does our current playing and practice season legislation support or undermine the role of athletics in higher education? Should the length of the playing season, the permissible number of contests and the amount of time student-athletes are permitted to engage in athletically related activities with teammates and coaches be adjusted to better reflect the philosophy?

? Status quo. (7)

? Keep with the philosophy of Division III institutional autonomy (5).

? Non-traditional seasons counter to Division III philosophy and taking away two sport athletes. (5)

? Division III philosophy says to maximize athletics opportunities. Kids go to school to play (4) ? this sends the message that athletics is bad. Non-traditionals are necessary. (3)

? Possibly eliminate non-traditional ? limit hours/week. (4)

? Sports autonomy should be the norm, the direction and concept is correct (2); equity is critical. Budget comes back to the critical issue. (2) The fall teams are not considered and conference differences are not considered. Geography, budgets and facilities (3) are factors too.

? Oppose restricting opportunities for Student-Athletes. Student-Athletes perform at the same level or better than non Student-Athletes and do better in-season. (3) Concern comes from administrators and/or coaches who fear that staff and facilities are being overworked and overused. (2) Time is limited in college and athletics are important. Student-athletes are not being overworked or losing time away from other campus activities.

? Retain current Playing and Practice Season policy (2)? add opportunity for coaches to work with athletes ? better experience.

? In support of legislation at Convention. (2)

? Interest in modifying length and time of practice season.

? Doesn?t want to restrict number of contests, but doesn?t have a problem with shortening season. Conference tournaments are problems because it adds extra games because they are exempt. Aqs cause conference tournaments to be too important. Limiting number of contests will hurt independents ability to schedule. We now bring back students too soon; they need to work in summer to get money for school. Why do we allow teams to play so heavily during breaks? Student newspaper staff, student government don?t come back early. Student-athletes are important in classroom; it takes away from other students. It takes them away from being regular students and they are important part of the college community.

? Institutions must do a better job of what happens at their campus. With the limitations we currently have schedulers should do a better job of scheduling their programs to meet their institutions academic needs and requirements. The philosophy is not broke; it?s how we are following through on conducting local business.

? Students are used to more. Evolution has been driven by a desire for success. Success changes, 1) Be competitive, 2) Can we challenge for the conference? 3) Can we dominate the conference? 4) Can we win a national championship? (Success is a sliding scale)

? Reality is it will never be level (competitive equity). Just because one school does something to their betterment, and another school doesn?t do this, does this make it right to try to limit that other school?s program.

? Red-shirting/non-traditional season ? more of a teaching opportunity.

? Relationship between coach and athlete is most important. The athletic administration should be responsible for what an athlete experiences.

? Allowing scrimmages for sports that currently don?t have them will create an economic competitive advantage for those schools that can afford scrimmages. Does not support legislation.

? Make changes too often ? never live with decisions we make. (Procedural rule change ? Make changes every 5 years then re-evaluate)

ž Is this a move for presidents to pull in the range of athletic budgets?

MEMBERSHIP

The philosophy statement calls for member schools to maximize the number and variety of athletics opportunities for their students and to provide equitable competitive opportunities. Division III currently requires a member school to sponsor at least 10 sports (five for each gender). The average Division III school sponsors approximately 16 sports. Should sports sponsorship minimums increase, consistent with the goal of broad-based athletics programs? Should the size of coaching staffs or travel parties be restricted to better ensure the equitable allocation of resources among sports?

? Opposed to coaching staff and travel squad limits. (4)

? It is necessary to allow the institutions to gauge their own abilities in sponsoring adequate sports, which are meeting the needs of that particular institution and are of high quality. (4), ?maintain institutional control.? If the average is raised a transition period must be allowed.

? Retain sport sponsorship. (2)

? Institutional autonomy with coaching staffs and travel parties. (2)

? Supportive of increased sport sponsorship, provided it was in a subdivision setting, so it would not disadvantage those who would not rather add sports. (2)

? Some schools concentrate their resources in certain areas. There should be an adjustable scale of school enrollment for the number of sports they have. (2) Increase as a percentage of student body. New England has more numbers of sports because their schools are closer together and they can compete against more schools. It makes it easier and cheaper for New England to have a bigger number of sports. It should be coordinated in conferences to add sports so that institutions have competition around their location.

? Increasing the minimums from where they are currently could put further budgetary constraints on institutions that currently are stretched. Team limits cut down on participation.

? Subdivision ? many don?t want, but strong interest in change.

? Small schools (1,000 ?2,000 students) should sponsor more sports. (Due to so much emphasis on a specific number of sports.)

? 8 men / 8 women. Subdivide or create a Division IV for schools with less than 800 students who don?t meet 8/8 requirements.

? Higher number of sports reflects academic focus of institution. Some felt those colleges with higher number of sports were better or had higher academic reputations.

CHAMPIONSHIPS

The philosophy statement specifies that national championships should not be the primary emphasis in Division III; rather, regular season conference and regional competition should be the focus. However, there appears to be an increased emphasis on championships access and success in Division III. What role should national championships play in Division III? Should Division III championships be expanded, retained, reduced or eliminated in that regard?

? Championships are an important part of the student-athlete experience. We need to make sure it continues to be so. (6)

? Numbers are not the most important issue; having the opportunity is (expansion) (5).

? Eliminating championships is inconsistent with philosophy. Everybody strives for National Championship. Equity and access is very important. (4) Mementos, increased per diem and increased squad size should be secondary to access.

? Retain status quo. (2)

? Issue is whether smaller colleges can win. Does the national championship model work against conferences and further arms race. Would prefer regional championships to national championships. (2) Seen as integral part of Division III athletic experience.

? AQ is a good process, (2) but we?re not getting top teams into the Championship. (2) Championships are not the ?be-all, end-all? for many institutions. Emphasis on Conference Championship vs. National Championship. Conference play is important (2) Good philosophy as long as it is presented to Student-Athletes.

? The reality is that there is significant emphasis on Championships. This should be openly acknowledged. Pursuit of Championships impacts all the other categories listed here dramatically. (2) Championships drive other issues. If a significant number of schools don?t want to emphasize Championships, they should subdivide.

? Championship games create excitement, unity at institutions, for students and coaches. (2) Pride, sense of accomplishment, recruiting tool.

? Eliminate national championship

? Put initiative money (except strategic alliance grant) into championships, or pay own way for first round. Look at individual sports numbers. (No cap on swimming)

? Competition outside the region is scheduled for numerous positive reasons. Bonding among teammates, academics, in that the student-athlete has the opportunity to experience different cultures and different regions and parts of the country.

? Missed class time is a greater issue during the regular season vs. championship.

? Too much emphasis on post-season play ? need to focus on participation.

? Championships are not the problem; it is the length of season.

ž How many is too many in terms of teams qualifying for the Championship? Is it 1/6.5 or 1 to 5 or 1 to 4? (2)

ž Should main focus during regular season be to make it to National Championship?

ž Can you create the Championship experience by having just a ?big game? (with rival team)?

Additional Comments:

? In favor of expansion.

? Debate: will Student-Athletes attend schools with no non-traditional seasons? (Depends on what student wants)

? Student-Athletes are adults; if they don?t want to have non-traditional seasons then they shouldn?t play. Need to empower students and let them make their own decisions.

? Presidents are going above everyone and not communicating down through the chain. Communication among everyone could solve everything.

? What neatly defines us in Division III? How are we distinctive?