VFG Communication #6 Comments
|
Total Responses – 7 responses representing 7 conferences
as of Responses grouped alphabetically by conference. |
The
legislation requiring the minimum contest number to be at 70% of the average
seems to have a flaw. If there are
a number of institutions which need to raise their number of contests in a
particular sport to get to the new minimum that would in turn create a higher
average and mean that a new minimum would again need to be reached. Why should the average number of
contests which high profile programs or weather-friendly institutions have
impact what we have? Let's use golf
as an example...we want to have it but not at the level at which top level
programs can offer in terms of contests, by choice, or by other factors such as
the availability of facilities or what the weather will allow. I am concerned about this legislation
and opposed to it.
Ken
Krsolovic, director of athletics,
We support
strongly the future of Division III phase II legislative package. Point c appears to fit assumptions that
our schools have been working under for many years. I would like to emphasize the need for
the inclusion of the phrase that "coach’s play a significant role as
educators" in the philosophy statement as a long overdue acknowledgement
of the professional role that coaches play and the expectations that go along
with such a role. The concept fits
the original intent of the philosophy statement. Item a would also be
supported. However, we suggest
speeding up the process by moving those sports within the 6 team cap (58 teams)
to make a 64 team draw. The current
allowance for a 2-6 team variance with byes creates an unfair advantage for
those teams receiving the byes-(e.g. review the old 28 team draw in
football). Items b and e are simple
and supportable. On the other hand,
item d is a bit more complex, I will want to hear debate on the floor since I
do not know what implications and potential hardships this might have on
smaller schools. Currently
the CCIW sponsors 21 sports, so philosophically we would be in favor of the
higher sponsorship criteria. Tony
Ladd
Tony Ladd, director of athletics,
This may
be a valuable point of conversation during our November meeting.
At this
point I have little to offer other than that each of these areas are
fundamental in our three colleges.
a. no
issue with this unless we grow to a point where 64 teams will not allow for
access to quality 2nd place teams from AQ conferences.
b. I'm
not a fan of additional self-studies.
Even though the SCIAC now has an Exec. Asst. we have plenty to do w/o
adding another study. I'll reserve judgment until I know more, but I ought to
register my initial opposition to this kind of review.
c. These
are basic and fundamental premises in the CMS program.
d. I'm
sure you have already done the math about sport sponsorship. I trust that 6 is
the largest number we believe will improve the landscape, and pass. I would still suggest a larger number if
Football is not in the program.
e. I'll
listen to arguments in opposition, but can't imagine supporting an alternative
view.
B: these
three tenants are basic to our reality so we don't feel the need to develop any
special programming for our athletes.
They spend so much time in their dorms, classes, dining halls, and w/
faculty, compared to the time we have with our students that I feel the
pendulum could swing the other way a bit and we'd still be fine.
Our S/A's
certainly perform like the general student body in the classroom, and in the
offseason have much more involvement in campus life away from athletics. That said, our S/A's actually want to
excel in their sports and do not, as a group, feel as if they are being
shortchanged on their opportunities on campus. This may be our good fortune, for being
such a small place, with many roles to be filled and relatively few students to
fill them. The engagement, integration
piece
doesn't
seem to be our biggest challenge.
It has
been our history to treat all sports "comparably." To give each the
chance and support to compete for a conference title. If anything we provide less support for
the programs that have shown their competitiveness, and we definitely provide
less assistance to Football and Basketball than is the norm. Our teams get to experience out of area
travel every other year, and although the costs differ for each group, the
experience is similar. This is the
root of our equity, while it may cost more to sponsor one sport than another,
we accept that, so long as all are treated comparably in their opportunity to
schedule, outfit, and train as they see fit (within the SCIAC and NCAA rules).
Michael Sutton,
director of athletics,
a. I
would support capping team sport brackets restricting access to a ratio of
1:6.5
b. I
think a conference wide self study guide would be beneficial although I would
not support the mandatory use of such an implement or the use of such data for
realignment.
c. I
would support the amendment of the DIII philosophy statement in all areas
mentioned.
d. I
would also support the minimum sports sponsorship requirements.
e. I do
not have an opinion.
Brenda
Brewer, coach, The University of Scranton, Middle Atlantic States Collegiate
Athletic Corporation.
Amending the philosophy statement to incorporate the items
listed in c reflects principles supported by our conference.
The proposal to change the minimum contest requirements
(item e) – in most cases raising contest numbers – I don’t
believe is in the best interest of the membership or the student-athletes. There are a number of sports in which the
minimum number of games will more than double. The current minimum number
of games for baseball and softball is 12. The proposal recommends the minimum
number be increased to 25 and 24 respectively. Teams in the northeast (and certainly
other areas of the country) often are not able to get outside until late March
or early April. If a team does not
qualify for their conference tournament or if final exams are scheduled for
late
April/early May, that team may have only five weeks to fit
in those games. Requiring teams to
play an average of five contests per week (assuming good weather of course)
does not seem to be in the best interest of the students. Also, in the process of determining these
numbers, I believe that exempted contests - such as conference and NCAA
championship games – were included in the calculations. As we all know, only a limited number of
teams make NCAA championships (and in many cases conference championships). So, at a minimum, it seems that those
games should not be included in the calculation to arrive at the minimum number
of contests. And, finally, raising
the minimum number of contests may make it more challenging for institutions
that are thinking of adding new programs.
With regard to item a (conference self-study guide),
conferences certainly benefit from addressing such issues as institutional
missions, academic profile, sport sponsorship, CEO involvement, etc. However, I think we are better served by
having this be part of “best practices” rather than mandating this
through legislation.
Finally, with regard to item d (minimum number of programs),
sponsoring broad based programs is something supported within our conference as
our members have anywhere from 27-32 programs. However, I will be interested to hear how
the proposed increase might affect others in the membership (especially if the
minimum contest requirements are increased).
Andrea
Savage, commissioner, New England Small College Athletic Conference
a. Cap each team sport
bracket at 64, once sports sponsorship access ratio exceeds 1:6.5, except
football, which will remain at 32.
I think this is a
reasonable solution which can be reviewed at a later date if the numbers
warrant it.
b. Create a Conference
Self-Study Guide to emphasize the importance of a conference-based philosophy
and address issues such as institutional mission; academic profile; geographic
proximity; athletics profile; diversity; and CEO involvement, effective
I really think this is
added work that is not necessary.
If an institution feels that a particular conference is a good fit and
if the conference itself is vital, there is no reason for going through this
exercise. I think that evaluation
can be a good thing, but I don't think we need to over analyze everything. Perhaps this tool can be in place as an
option IF a conference chooses to do a self study.
c. Amend the Division
III philosophy statement to: Assure
that admissions policies for student-athletes comply with those applicable to
the general student body.
Does this imply that
student athletes could not be admitted as special talent students as a fine
arts or health careers student could?
If so, I am opposed to the addition of the statement.
Assure that the academic
performance of student-athletes should be, at a minimum; consistent with the
general study body.
I agree with this
principle.
Encourage that the
administration of an institution’s athletics program (e.g., hiring and
compensation; professional development and certification of coaches) be
integrated into the campus culture and educational mission.
I agree with this
principle. At state institutions
this is already done.
Acknowledge that coaches
play a significant role as educators.
I agree with this
principle.
d. Increase minimum sports
sponsorship requirements to six sports for male/mixed teams and six sports for
female teams for institutions with enrollment greater than 1,000 students, with
a delayed effective date of
I am not in favor of
linking the size of an athletic program to the size of the institution. I strongly believe in institutional
autonomy, and a college or university should be able to make the decision
regarding the number and type of sports which are sponsored.
e. Increase minimum
contest requirements to 70 percent of division-wide average number of contests
in that sport, with a delayed effective date of
I think that this may
impact schools in the mid west and west that find it difficult to schedule other
division III opponents. It may
impose an undue financial hardship on these institutions. Not in favor of this.
Holly
Gera, senior woman administrator,
I
submitted academic progress comments through the NCAA link. My comments included:
1) Academic folder including athlete
absences, grades, and upcoming assignments - signed by
faculty members every 2-3 weeks.
2) Eligibility confirmation before and
after drop/add form; review of rosters by athletic life faculty committee to
determine if athletes excluded from traditional/non-traditional seasons based on
academic progress.
3) Rosters and game schedules
distributed (via email) to
all faculty at start of semester.
Although
the school has used study hall sessions in the past, this option did not
enhance academic performance of students (consistent with DI studies on study
halls).
The only area that I would feel 100% confident
in addressing would be how VWC is continuing to develop and try new ideas that
would help ensure the academic success of our S-A's. We have developed a working group to
enhance the relationship between the S-A's and the academic support services that
are available at VWC. Below are our objectives:
Objectives:
A
conference self-study guide could be a decent idea to help maintain consistency
across the board. Thanks for asking
for our thoughts.
I think
it is a bit premature to be asking for best practices until we delve further
into the topics.
Michael
Walsh, athletics director, Washington and