REVISED
VFG Communication #3 Comments
30 responses, representing 16 conferences, as of
In regards to question number 1, I
feel that the management of growth, championship and postseason access, sport
and program equity, academic success, and conference affiliation are areas that
are worthy of further attention and discussion.
I feel that the sports sponsorship
and broad-based programs, cultural and campus integration are areas that can be
taken off the table.
In regards to question number 2, I
feel that the management of growth, championship access, as well as sport and
program equity would be worth further national discussion and possible
legislation. I feel that all of these items are worthy of national debate and
feedback from the members. The fact that Div. III is growing and teams need to
be able to have championship access and a plan for being able to expand the
playoffs seems obvious. This of course will cost money and it may be necessary
to increase the dues and membership fees in order to add teams to the playoff
structure. My colleagues in the coaching fraternity usually will always be in
favor of increasing non-traditional seasons, in season competition, and an
increase national championship access and national championship opportunities.
As coaches, it is discouraging to have our practice seasons shortened and our
playing seasons attacked. In fact, we would prefer with limitations and
regulations, an increase in practice and contest that we are allowed to play.
Sport program and equity have a valid reason to be discussed on the national
level in an attempt to enhance all athletic programs, male and female. Due to
the fact that most Div. III schools are smaller private schools in comparison
to the larger state universities, it makes sense that there be provisions made
for schools that offer football, versus those that do not. There should be
equity in regards to budgets and salaries in the various sports. All sports
should be supported if they are going to be offered by an institution.
In regards to question number 3, I
feel that academic success and conference affiliation are worthy of dialogue at
the conference level. I feel that if an institution or a conference would like
to have certain academic standards for its student-athletes, then each school
or conference could promote and implement such standards. In my opinion,
coaches are in total support of the overall academic success of their athletes.
The conference affiliation should be handled at the regional level as well.
Schools should fit the mold of what a conference is looking for in its members.
I do believe that geography and overall philosophies are areas that need to be
looked at and discussed at the conference level.
In regards to question number 4, I
feel that the oversight group should prioritize it attention on the most
pressing issues. In my opinion, the growth and management and championship
access takes priority. Based on what the research tells you would determine at
what priority level the sport and program equity issue should be placed.
Although I feel it will be good for others to see the data concerning academic
success and conference affiliation, it would be better for those discussions to
continue at the regional and conference level. Although some have shown some
support for sports sponsorship and broad based programs and cultural and campus
integrations, I feel that we as NCAA Div. III institutions have more pressing
issues that need to be focused on at this time.
If anyone has any questions or
comments, please feel free to contact me.
Steve Coleman, head baseball coach, Hardin-
I have highlighted within each section a point or two that
stands out. Overall, the priority
for research and discussion to me are found in my sections on sports
sponsorship and campus integration.
However, the one in sports sponsorship is the central topic I would like
to see addressed across all sections by the NCAA: a discussion about the
future of DIII based on the split between public and private, small and large,
and “perceived elite” versus the rest.
Growth
Further Attention
Clearly
current levels of support have almost universal support and this level seems to
be acceptable to the degree that many institutions support future fee hikes to
keep this level.
Buried in the numbers, though, is
the fact that over 75% of respondents had some level of support for allowing
DIII institutions to reclassify as DI or DII. This clearly seems to be important to
pursue. Decomposition by various
categories of this variable would be helpful. This is especially important given that
about the same percentage seek to maintain the current DIII structure.
Access to Championships
Sentiment seems to be for opposing additional mid-week
contests, presumably due to missed class time, and also to keeping Pool C
berths. A review of the numbers as
a whole suggest that, if finances allowed it, increasing Pool C would
seem to have support if had been asked.
Sport and Equity
Clearly there is strong support for continuing gender- and
minority- equity initiatives.
Sports Sponsorship
The breakout decompositions uncover some major differences
across various institutions based on their heterogeneous characteristics. This brings to the fore what has been rarely
said publicly, but much discussed privately, that the split between public and
private, small and large, and “perceived elite” versus the rest is
where much disagreement lies. I
would argue that a national discussion based on these dimensions, perhaps
beginning at the conference level, would help focus a wide range of discussion
items, with sports sponsorship just one of many.
Academic Success
An obviously non-divisive issue.
Cultural and Campus Integration
What stands out is the reporting line of the AD. When only one-fifth report to the CEO,
but NCAA policies are directed at the CEO, then there is a mismatch. The assumption is that the Student
Affairs Officer, who is the intermediary in 50 percent of the cases, will
somehow be responsive to both the AD and CEO. Yet the NCAA, to my knowledge,
doesn’t have a direct line of support to this person. A much better understanding of the
institutional structure and how it relates to the
NCAA and the institution’ athletics program would be useful.
Conference Affiliation
I had a hard time making too much of these data. What I would like to see is a breakdown within
conferences of their characteristics. Thus, for the 57 conferences it would
be useful to see how the similarities and dissimilarities within the
conferences varied and how those that cluster together respond to the survey
questions.
Kurt Beron, The
I think that the practical applications which deserve further attention are membership growth. I do not think that D3 should actively pursue new members, but I do not think they should refrain from letting new members in, especially if they follow the Divisions III philosophy. I think that we should maintain the level of support from the NCAA services. I do not think it is necessary to create subdivisions or a new division of the NCAA. I think the NCAA just needs to make sure they are letting in members with the same philosophy and outlook as the other members. I do not think that Pool C at large berths should be eliminated because that would give some teams no opportunity to make it into post-season. For example, my field hockey team is in the CAC conference and if we did not get an at-large bid, no team from our conference would make it in. I also do not think that the championship format should be expanded to 4 weeks because then it goes into other seasons. That is one of the awesome parts of D3; that students-athletes can play more than sport, and if the championship format is extended that cuts into other seasons.
I think the NCAA needs to make sure that there are sports and program equity at all times in both gender and ethnicity. I think there definitely needs to be equal emphasis on men’s and women's sports. I also support the recruitment of minority coaches and staff because I think it is important all races are well-represented. I do not think travel maximum rosters should be established. I think everyone on the team should travel or they should not be on the team.
I do not think that sports sponsorship should be increases above 5 sports for women and 5 sports for men. I think that is a good number to be required, because I think that if it is increased, there will not be a sufficient number on each of the teams. I also do not think membership in other national affiliations is a problem. I think it is good because if you do not get a bid to the NCAAs, you have another opportunity for post-season play.
I think academic success of student athletes is top priority and always needs to be addressed. That is one of the main points of the philosophy of D3 sports, the fact that the sport does not take over your life, and I think that academics definitely needs to be stressed and the students academic success needs to happen before sports. I think that using grade-point average is the best and most fair way to judge academic performance. I do not necessarily think graduation rate because a lot of students switch majors and do not graduate in 4 years.
I think cultural and campus integration is very important. I think athletics and education should go hand in hand. Coming from a student, I think is important that other students support athletics and that athletes support other organizations. I also think that is important for the coaches to realize that our studies come first and that classes and tests should come before practice or games. I also think professors need to be open to athletes, and as long as the students make up the work and attend class at all times, they should be OK with students missing a few classes. I also think sports need to be better promoted throughout campus and to get more of the faculty and staff involved. Sometimes I feel like athletics are a completely different world.
With regard to conferences, I think all the schools in a particular conference should be similarly and should have the same philosophies with regard to education and athletics. I think that conference should have core philosophical principles that all the members need to follow.
I think all of these are pretty important to be discussed, and I do not think any of them should be "taken off the table."
For national discussion, I think the most important area would be membership growth and sports sponsorship and broad-based programs. I think at the national level, they need to worry about expanding the division and making sure all schools follow the philosophy. I think sports sponsorship is important because schools should be trying to get as many sports and as many athletes, and still be competitive within the conference.
I think all these issues could be discussed at the conference or regional level because I think everyone could provide good input from their own institutions.
I hope this is OK.
Let me know if you need anything else. Also, I didn't think so, but I was just
wondering if I am supposed to attend this conference in
Kelly McErlean, student-athlete, Catholic University
of America
54 mcerlean@cua.edu,
Capital Athletic Conference
1)
I discounted any answers in the "somewhat" category because this tells
me that the respondent either didn't understand the question or it did not
effect them.
2)
I was disappointed that there were already "conclusions" about each category.
It is too easy for our responses to be biased toward the conclusions already
provided.
Question
#1
The
survey identifies seven areas of focus (management of growth, championships and
postseason access, sport and program equity, sports sponsorship and broad-based
programs, academic success, cultural and campus integration, and conference
affiliation). Which, if any, practical applications in each area, based on the
survey results, seem most worthy of further attention? Conversely, what
practical applications should be "taken off the table?"
I
probably looked at this from a too simplistic view, but based on the percentages
areas that need further attention are:
a)
2b (49.4%) - almost 1/2 of the respondents and if you were to include the
"somewhat support" group then a large majority supported this compared
to just 21.3 showing any opposition.
b)
10c (54.7%) - the numbers would indicate support for this, but I believe that
such a policy would act in direct contradiction to the Division III philosophy
regarding minimizing infringement of the freedom of individual institutions to
determine their own special objectives and programs.
c)
10e (77.1%) - the percentages support this.
Dropped
from discussion:
2a,
2c - overwhelming support for keeping the status quo in NCAA services and
Division III structure.
6c,
6e, 6f - it is clear that people are opposed to these three things
10d
- the numbers support people wanting to maintain these programs
Question
#2
Which
practical applications seem most appropriate for further national discussion
and/or to be identified as possible legislation at the national level? Why?
My
interpretation of this question leads me to identify those practical areas
where an overwhelming majority felt that changes from the status quo were
important and those changes should happen at the national level. To that end, I believe that the areas
that should be targeted for
National
legislation is:
a)
2b
b)
2f - but institution can already do this (at least they can move to Division
II, should this state, "directly to Division I"?) This question is misleading.
Nonetheless, respondents seemed to support this.
Question
#3
Likewise,
which practical applications seem most appropriate for dialogue at the
conference or regional level, and/or to be identified as possible legislation
or policy at the conference/regional level? Why?
Although
the data doesn't necessarily support this, I feel that the only area where it
is practical to have dialogue regarding conference legislation is academic
success.
Question
#4
Based
upon the survey responses, how should the oversight group prioritize its
attention between the seven areas?
The
oversight group needs to examine to what extent institutions feel the
importance of addressing particular issues at the national level. Considering the broad diversity of our
Division, I would not prioritize any issue where less than 80% felt it was
important to address at the national level. Using this approach I would rank
importance by:
A)
Championships: all three philosophical questions gained over 90% approval for
addressing at the national level.
B)
Program Equity: question #7 had support to address at the national level
C)
Management of Growth:
D)
Academic Success
Josh MacArthur,
Related
to analyses of the survey and expressions of interest by the membership,
discussions at the 2005 NCAA Convention should focus on a limited number of
national issues. Information
resulting from that debate should be used by the councils to develop
legislative proposals for the 2006 Convention. From my perspective the big issues
include:
1. Management
of growth. The oversight group
should try to sort out the meaning of the split in membership on this
issue. Is it based on assumptions
of limited funding in D-III? Access to championships? Or something else? Would we be better
off if we allowed institutions to drive membership decisions. If more institutions identified with
D-III, would that enhance the status and power of D-III in American society? in
the NCAA?
2. Access
to championships. This is still the
hottest topic among the D-III constituency. The membership has clearly identified
bracket expansion as a desirable goal while retaining access for conference
champions. The current ratio system
(6.5 to 1) is artificial and should be eliminated in reference to team sports
that are sponsored by most D-III institutions--e.g. basketball, soccer,
baseball, softball and volleyball.
Those sports should use a 64 team draw that would eliminate all
byes. Other sports should use
brackets based on multiples of four so that "even" brackets would
exist in those sports. For tournament
selection, pool B should be combined with pool C. This would insure that pool B schools
match the quality of other teams in the tournament. Finally, reducing full funding in the
first round should be accomplished (except for those institutions that need to
fly in the first round) to allow schools to "buy into" the NCAA
framework rather than allowing institutions to simply live off NCAA
funding.
3. Regionalization. This subject ought to be addressed from
a different angle than it was in the survey. Practical aspects of regionalization--
unequal sizes, gerrymandered regions and sport teams on the same campus
reporting to different regions create significant structural and political
problems. Eliminating these
artificial lines would reduce some problems related to championship selection. Selection would be based on national
criteria.
4. FLSA. Can the NCAA be more responsive to
issues that the entire constituency faces?
For example, all 430 D-III schools have been impacted by the Department
of Labor's interpretation of FLSA.
Yet, D-III has not addressed this.
There was nothing in the survey or follow-up to it regarding this
issue. If D-III provides a platform
for educational athletics it would seem that those who lead those programs are
educators. If educators are exempt,
and if coaches are educators, then coaches should be exempt.
In summary,
the oversight group should focus on a few select national issues--growth,
access to championships and governance.
Leave to conferences and regional bodies issues such as sport
sponsorship and soci-cultural issues.
Other issues such as academic success (graduation rates) should be taken
off the table since comparisons are often invalid or misleading.
Tony Ladd, athletics director, Wheaton College (IL),
College Conference of
1. The survey identifies seven areas of focus (management of
growth, championships and postseason access, sport and program equity, sports
sponsorship and broad-based programs, academic success, cultural and campus
integration, and conference affiliation). Which, if any, practical applications
in each area, based on the survey results, seem most worthy of further
attention? Conversely, what practical applications should be "taken off
the table”?
Which,
if any, practical applications in each area, based on the survey results, seem
most worthy of further attention?
Raise membership dues, if necessary. As a further point, I think D-III should
continue to go back to through the NCAA structure to increase the budgetary
percentage that D-III receives. Data showing the growth that is occurring in
D-III should be used to support a larger slice of the pie.
There is support of maintaining high academic
expectations of the student-athletes, at least to the point of equaling the
general student body on our campuses. Academic standards should not change at
the national level, but institutions could be held accountable at the local
level, similar in thought to the financial aid audit. There is overwhelming
support that all areas of Academic Success should be equal on campuses. The
membership could consider requiring that institutions have equality between
student-athletes and the general student body in terms of admissions, academic
standards, grad rate, GPA, etc.
Improving sportsmanship throughout D-III.
Conversely,
what practical applications should be "taken off the table”?
Changes in the D-III structure in response to
managing growth. It seems that most in the membership want to keep D-III the
same, with no sub-divisions or new divisions.
There should be no changes to the championships
access. The ratio should be established and followed. Bracket size should be
dictated based on the ratio and the number of sponsoring institutions.
Automatic Qualification should be kept as is. Pool “C” should be
maintained within the constraints of maintaining Pool “A”.
No changes in sports sponsorship requirements, no
establishment of roster sizes. There is not enough support in the membership to
make changes in these areas.
2. Which
practical applications seem most appropriate for further national discussion
and/or to be identified as possible legislation at the national level? Why?
Increasing membership dues if D-III is unable to get
an increase in budget from NCAA. Most of the membership wants to maintain and
improve access to fully funded championships. Most of the membership looks to
NCAA National Office to provide programming in a variety of areas.
Possible legislation related to academic equality on
campuses, similar to expected equality in the financial aid packages between
student-athletes and the general student body.
Each institution should be required to have a
sportsmanship policy pertaining to staff (particularly coaches),
student-athletes, and spectators.
3. Likewise,
which practical applications seem most appropriate for dialogue at the
conference or regional level, and/or to be identified as possible legislation
or policy at the conference/regional level? Why?
Sport and program equity should be dealt with at the
institution and conference levels. Conferences should provide opportunities for
both genders. Institutions are held to Title IX standards, and therefore
legislation is this area is not needed. The role of NCAA National Office staff
is to coordinate and provide programming for institutions to help institutions
and conferences maintain equity. For example, Title IX programming at the
National Convention, and the Title IX Workshops.
Conferences should be responsible for establishing
criteria for membership. There should be no legislation in this area at the
national level. NCAA staff should provide leadership in assisting conferences
to become stronger in this area.
4. Based
upon the survey responses, how should the oversight group prioritize its
attention between the seven areas?
Access to Championships: this is on going and should
continue with the growth of D-III
Academic Success: there could be some creative
legislation that could come out of this
Management
of Growth: pursuing budget options
Sport
and Program Equity: dealt with primarily at conference and institution level
Sport
Sponsorship: dealt with primarily at conference and institution level
Cultural and Campus Integration: dealt with primarily
at conference and institution level
Conference Affiliation: dealt with primarily at conference
and institution level.
Dennis Leighton,
I.
Which,
if any, practical applications in each area, based on the survey results, seem
most worthy of further attention?
A.
Maintain
currant levels of support for the membership
B.
Membership
Dues
C.
NCAA
programming to enhance opportunities for the recruitment of minority coaches,
staff, and student-athletes.
D.
Sportsmanship
Issues.
E.
Permission
to realign without loss of automatic qualification, for a limited time period.
II.
What
applications should be “taken off the table?”
A.
Actively
pursue new members committed to the Division III philosophy.
B.
Aggressively
limit membership growth.
C.
Reclassify
to Division I and II.
D.
Establish
travel rosters.
E.
Establish
coaching limits.
F.
Division
III structure (let’s stay the way we are).
III.
Practical
applications most appropriate for further national discussion and/or to be
identified as possible legislation at the national level? Why?
A.
Membership
Dues (increase is inevitable unless D-III receives a greater piece of the pie).
B.
Increased
participation in individual sports used to meet sponsorship minimums (presently
in tennis, only 5 student-athletes are needed to meet the requirements. This means the teams starts the match
down 2-0. In the interest of
appropriate competition, that number should be increased by 1 to the number 6).
C.
We
should discuss the policy to allow schools to opt out of NCAA Championship
consideration to enter other (approved) championships.
D.
We
should discuss dual affiliations in conjunction with item C above.
E.
Sportsmanship
programming/policies.
F.
Realignment
without loss of automatic qualification, for a limited period of time.
G.
NCAA
Programming for minority enhancement.
IV.
Which
practical applications seem most appropriate for dialogue at the conference or
regional level, and/or are identified as possible legislation or policy at the
conference/regional level? Why?
A.
Sport
Equity
B.
Academic
Success (Conference Eligibility Standards; Conference All-Academic Teams)
C.
Sportsmanship
(Conference policies, statement to be posted in the facility, included in
programs, and read at the start of each playing period (might be overkill in
baseball/softball; Presentations on campuses and at Conference SAAC meetings).
D.
Conference
Affiliation (Who are we? What do we
stand for? How do others perceive
us?).
E.
Cultural
& Campus Integration (Presidential, FAR, AD, SWA, SAAC, Commissioner
involvement to clearly define and implement programs and policies to make this
a reality).
V.
How
should the oversight group prioritize its attention between the seven areas?
A.
Sportsmanship
B.
Access
to Championships
C.
Management
of Growth (budget concerns and programming)
D.
Sport
Sponsorship
E.
Sport
and Program Equity
F.
Academic
Success
G.
Cultural
and Campus Integration
H.
Conference
Affiliation
Del Molley, director of athletics,
Practical Applications
a. Management
of Growth
Those
that merit further attention:
·
Maintaining
current levels of membership services and support, even if an increase in dues
is required (National level).
·
Maintaining
the current D-III structure while managing/controlling membership growth
(National level).
·
Enable
institutions to reclassify to D-I or D-II but for ALL sports (National level).
Take
off the table:
·
Creating
subdivisions in D-III OR creating a new division.
b. Championships
·
None
of the practical applications received support to merit further consideration
at this point in time. Most all
responses indicated support for the primary emphasis being on conference
championships and regional competition.
However, it is obvious over the past several years that the national
championships issues have driven most of the legislation in D-III; responses
seem inconsistent with practices.
c. Sport
and Program Equity
·
The
questions received overwhelmingly supportive responses; how could they
not? Continue to support equity
practices at the national level through current funding methods; conferences
and individual institutions should take the lead in ensuring equity at these
levels.
d. Sports
Sponsorship & Broad-Based Programs
·
There
does not seem to be a mandate for any changes in current requirements. The only practical application worth
pursuing, if any, is to discontinue the practice of allowing dual memberships.
e. Academic
Success of Student-Athletes
·
This
topic has much support and should be pursued, particularly in the areas of
graduation rates and comparative GPA’s (with respective general
population at that institution).
The issue of certifying eligibility each term needs to be addressed as
well for academic credibility.
National level.
f. Cultural
& Campus Integration
·
These
issues should be addressed at the institutional level. The NCAA should continue to provide
resources and opportunities for integration, but no further action is
warranted.
g. Conference
Affiliation
·
Addressing
the philosophical basis of conference affiliation seems appropriate, with most
institutions supporting core principles; these could be included in
requirements for acceptance as a D-III conference by the NCAA. No other action seems necessary.
Based upon the survey results, it seems that the oversight
group should focus its efforts on the areas of student-athlete academic
success; the management of growth while maintaining the current structure and
services of the NCAA; and the continuing issues of championships.
Ted Kinder,
Two categories of issues seem to remain worth pursuing.
First, membership and management of growth. To me, the definition of criteria for membership should precede discussion of growth in numbers; otherwise, DIII will grow like Topsy and then struggle to define itself. Similarly, these two issues (membership and management of growth) should precede discussion of the minimum number of sports that member institutions have to sponsor; otherwise, the variety of institutions within the fold will