DIVISION III MANAGEMENT OF GROWTH AND CHAMPIONSHIP ISSUES

1. Management of Growth

If you believe that Division III will become too large, what would your solution to this issue be?

· Subdivision is a reasonable solution to growth…along some set of principles.

· a. Subdivision.

· How?

(1) Enrollment.

(2) Private-public.

(3) Sponsorship.

(4) Philosophy.

b. Elimination of pools.

c. Independents why?

d. The larger we get philosophically we get too diverse.

(1) About the process, not the product.

(2) Institutional parameters change to win.

· What are ramifications – championships. If we can manage until 2010 at 450, will the expansion level off? Why should be limit people with some philosophy and desires. We can manage until 2010.

· A suggestion to respond to both questions (second question being “Conference Affiliation” on page two of the blue sheet) is:

a. Allow growth to continue during the time period up to 2010.

b. Allow institutions the opportunity to realign to other conferences and/or create new conferences during the time period up to 2010 and such movement be managed by at least the current NCAA bylaws and/or their amendments.

· No limits in membership growth opportunities for participation for all institutions interested in becoming members. Subdivisions; regional championships.

· a. What are the issues with size besides that of championship – winning record in order

to compete?

b. What are issues of going from 1.6 to 1.10?

c. Playing more within the region, i.e., regional.

d. Grow to certain size – integrate independents/provisional schools instead of making their own conferences.

a. AQ’s, multiple bids.

b. Establishment problems versus working through multiple bids.

e. Difficulty of schools (independent/provisional) hooking up with a conference.

f. What is being looked at for Division III experiencing tremendous growth and Division II where they are not experiencing that same growth?

· a. Problem lies in the formation of the championship brackets.

b. 1.75 to 1/65 ratio.

c. Play regional championships instead of cutting back on the ratio.

d. There must be a compromise somewhere if number of teams and ratio is not to be changed.

e. Independents join existing conferences and not form their own. Get a second bid through because of size change.

f. Some conferences are extremely geographically spread; they could eliminate those conferences and put the teams into a more sensible conference (i.e., Northeast Athletic Conference).

g. AQs, multiple bids, cutting back the ratio.

· Budget implications to increasing cross from championships to other programming. Brackets set too big – length of season for some will ultimately create greater inequity of experience. Limited grant money – becomes more difficult to access this. Fifty percent of NCAA – is this too big? If our philosophy is belief in the Division III ideal, we should be encouraging growth. Sixty four is good for championship and should not be exceeded. Some teams may not get access – but the championship is about determining the best. What will happen to our percentage allocation if we divide? Additional staff? Tail wagging the dog? Are our size discussions solely about access to championship? Are we funneling the size issue into a predetermined model? “Blow it up and start over” with designing championship access. Check philosophical basis of institutions joining to make sure that there is “true” buy in to the philosophy.

· Does size mean too large? As long as they meet philosophy we should make it available. Diversity of institutions. As the division grows we should accommodate it.

· What is relevancy of size? Accommodate growth as long as philosophy remains.

· What is too large – budgetary or too difficult to manage? Like to see us find sources for funding – must be answered whether we split or not. Why haven’t dues gone up in 20 years? What would be reasonable increase – focus group – maybe to about $1,500. Might get some resistance, but just give time to make it happen. Need opportunity to plan – no surprises. Maybe a year for $600 increase. Also, knowledge of what would come from increasing dues. Again, what does too large mean? Some schools don’t factor in NCAA championships. NCAA has chased national championship too far. Lot of money for that percentage of teams. Should there be a kickback for conference championships instead of giving to NCAA championships.

· Diversity issue could grow as membership grows. Need to examine why institutions are wanting to join Division III and make sure they adhere to NCAA philosophy. Success to championships is a minimum of concern. How big is too big? These questions will continue due to pool numbers over time. Some could believe that dues have not increased for such a long time.

· Access to championships – trying to manage this is challenging. More teams – 57 teams in softball. Missed class time is a result. AQs may not put best teams forward. AQs not necessarily weaker teams coming from this. Often not scheduled – segregated because “rich” want to stay in cliques. AQs – sees positives; negatives – tend to even things out. But sometimes prevents good teams from gaining access – positive is Pool C, which mitigates them. Where does size growth get too much? Is it 1.65 is good – needs to be maintained. Could adapt a BCS-like formula to try to cope with growth. Clearly concern about growth as it relates to access to championships. Breaking up Division III will water down championships.

· Cap it at 450. Isn’t the NCAA becoming too cumbersome as a whole? No subdivision. Size (of NCAA) doesn’t matter if you tie the academic mission into the athletic program. Institutional control of philosophy.

· The division is becoming larger and in fact in the near future will be too large. We agree measures must be taken to either limit future growth or develop a process to control it. Our group did not have an answer for this concern – but agreed it is a concern.

· a. Why haven’t fees increased? Why not increase? Should increase for value added.

b. Having fully-funded championship access is still the issue? But it’s not about championships.

c. Perhaps look at institutional funding for first round of championship.

d. Seems arrogant to say we should worry about growth – Division III is very ?? reactive.

e. Probably should not worry about limit growth – if everyone wants to come in – question of is this inconsistent.

f. Want to preserve the philosophy of Division III.

g. Is limiting growth contradicting to our philosophy of participant student-athlete.

h. Need to ensure conference contributing if don’t limit growth – provisional membership.

i. Geographical distribution still an issue.

j. Championships often get shifted to the west.

k. One alternative is to let the people who go to championship pay (let the colleges who go pay).

l. Championships seem to drive the issue.

· Split. More selective being IV members; the rest stay in III. Annapolis group ready to go now (120 members) based on selectivity, mission, profile. Values issue – “DIII isn’t what it used to be.” Publics are “just different,” not “lower.” Those who aren’t’ doing it as it should be done are driving selective schools out (endowed funds, aid as scholarships). Out of region issue - us like institutions as opponents. Championship competition - we non-philosophically matched schools do not see as a problem but there was clearly a concern. Financial aid study not seen as getting us useful information.

· Is there a definition of “too large” - where does the maximum number lie? If subdivision is necessary, it should be done on a philosophical basis with self-selection. Student-athlete outcomes should be considered – quality of student-athlete experience.

· Could % 3.18 increase? Increase dues for all Division III rather than full championship funding (let schools pay for first-round games). Play midweek championship game rather than extend weeks. Elite Eight field rather than Final Four. Raise sport sponsorship numbers in Division III. Make it possible for schools to move to Division I or II if their philosophy is more loosely tied to Division I or II. Is there an optimal number for the division when looking at access to championships, use of $$, philosophy, or let schools pay for unanimity of purpose, etc?

· Perhaps a subgroup including like-minded institutions could be formed. For instance, a Division III-A could be used. With Division I-A as a backdrop for this move, it is feasible to finance this initiative in a familiar way.

· I think Division III already faces difficulties because of the broad nature of the schools that are members. Different sites, different funds, different access to facilities, and different levels of interest among the student body lead to differences among the members that are more significant than the fact that Division III share a common view that athletics shouldn’t be as emphasized as it is at the Division I level.

Some argue that the fundamental motivation for institutions in support of splitting is the issue over access to championships. I don’t agree with this. The inherent differences that exist can lead to lopsided competition. The goal of the division should be to provide enjoyable opportunities for student-athletes. If a team from a school with 1,000 students and 20 sports is always beaten by larger schools that have fewer sports among which to allocate funds, is that enjoyable for the losing team? Increasing sport requirements isn’t going to improve things because the schools should be allowed to maintain those philosophical differences but by splitting and decreasing the numbers in each division, the differences will always exist, but hopefully the scope will be narrower.

· Institutions would fund first round – do not have a fully-funded championship. Revisit the concept of regions. Increase dues. Base championship per diem on extended travel.

· Create nonscholarship DII. If NAIA has original philosophy of providing aid – have them consider DII. Increase the percentage that goes toward the 3.18 budget allotment. 4.2 or higher. Especially if DIII is 45 percent of membership.

· Growth of itself not an issue for most folks. The solution obviously has to focus on the championship issue, which is the problem stemming from growth. Many differences in opinion on how to deal with the latter. Several were in favor of going to split divisions; others were opposed to this and favored either adding a week, going to mid-week games and/or changing the ratios of access.

· I don’t believe it will become too large. If there is an overwhelming concern about growth, a solution would be to decrease access ratios. Strongly opposed to subdivision. No problem to add an additional mid-week game if needed due to growth.

· Subdivisions. The range of programs differ so much philosophically that it would make sense to see another division formed to keep like institutions competing against one another. This can reduce tensions.

· Growth is not a concern. I do not believe in subdivision or another division. Growth can be accommodated with mod-week games or another weekend (although I don’t favor another weekend).

· Growth – deemphasize championship, may eliminate problem. For regional championships – no tiering. Championships are the wedge that causes diversity; some like diversity; regional championships. Subdivision – 450 members don’t have a lot in common. Would help with travel issues and resources. No equity with small schools competing with larger schools in championship. Divide by size? Divide by academic performance? Agreement that education is number one. Conference can do subdivision. Need another option – subdivision and regional competition are not enough. I like the way it is now with the pools. We need access to championships with keeping student focus in class and budgets down. Some SAACs don’t want regional championships, want one winner.

· Not sure the division could get “too large.” Issues come in regarding championship access – hard to answer at this point. Where would growth come from? Where (geographical) would additions be? Balance and increased membership in all regions. Try to encourage membership in areas of country where DIII underrepresented – west and south. Perhaps some DII schools would rather be DIII, but have no “close” DIII intuitions.

· Current access ratios will accommodate growth rate – max out 2010. In financing terms? Ask for higher ____ of funding.

· Majority decided that expanding length of championships not an option. Increase dues rather than pay as you go. Majority not for capping membership/we should subdivide after hit an unmanageable number. Should maintain the six-year process to prove commitment to the DIII philosophy.

· Realign the number of schools in conferences by 2010 to adjust to expected growth (increase ratio). Subdivision – some schools (women’s colleges) support recreational competition. What are the implications of subdividing or not subdividing? Is the push for subdivision based on differences in philosophy or size? If not subdivision, schools in DIII can return to business before AQ was established to choose players for national championships. Or two-tier championship model (regional then a national championship model).

· Divide DIII, but how to do it. Divide like DI does – AA, AAA.

· * New division? Subdivision? Seems to be different philosophies with division already.

- Practice/competitions.

- Sizes.

- Competitive versus play just to play.

- Resources.

* Need to develop new way of thinking as far as Division III [subdivisions with more aggressiveness (bigger programs) versus nonaggressiveness (smaller programs). Can’t follow conference alignment (differences in institutions within conference as well).

* Some institutions believe in going to national championships, some may just want regional (make this known to athletes before attending).

* Difficulty in geographical location (expense of schools who decide not to stay in conference with surrounding schools) – “will ultimately come down to where we are and will probably stay where we are.”

* Increase dues – an option? Is funding a problem?

· Only in relation to championships – outgrow current ratios. Dues a bargain – hope that continues. Bump up against 64 – create problems with three weeks – many are not willing to move beyond three weeks. When we “max out” – how many added schools are anticipated? Will NAIA continue to be viable? ______ may change – people may come to accept limited number of Pool C options. General note: after the first round of questions, I had to remind the group that we were genuinely seeking their input and solutions. Through the first round on growth and championship issues the focus was on what “they (NCAA) are going to do.”

· Funding source – 3.18 percent is not going to go as far; try to increase. Championships have to be fully funded. Break into smaller “regional” championships; not strong support. What is the role of the conference championships? Threw out the window last year. Don’t want to turn schools away based on a championship issue. If it is not a championship issue, then what is it? Maybe if we get bigger we can get more than 3.18 percent. Doesn’t it come down to our ability to produce $? Issues – (1) Funding versus (2) Championships. “What are you willing to pay for fully-funded championships?”

· 2010 – 450 members anticipated

Championships access

Budgeting issues

Championship funding

AQ conference (Pool A) at least seven sponsored

AQ conference (Pool B) at least seven sponsored

AQ conference (Pool C) at least seven sponsored

Four-week championship schedule/midweek

Subdivision – new division

· Tied to championships. Different philosophical base and emphasis. Maybe. Practical aspects of subdivision unknown – by size; by philosophy.

· Enrollment split – 2000 and above = DIII-A; 1999 and below = DIII-AA. Same philosophies between subdivisions. AQ for conferences would go to top A and AA finishers in the top ½ of conference. No AQ is given to top (A or AA) finisher if they are not in the top ½. At-large bids would be limited or increased as necessary.

· a. There isn’t a “too large” for Division III. Regarding the national level of competition, we may have to figure out how to work the national championship, but the primary emphasis should remain on regional competition and we should allow institutions to continue to join to gain this experience. If the academic and athletic mission is to provide educational experiences, including athletic competitions, then we shouldn’t limit that.

b. If I believe this, create opportunities for institutions to pick the affiliation to allow for institutional autonomy.

c. Allow for subdivision like DI, but don’t base it on the number of scholarships, level of competition, etc. Instead, base it on “I want to play 23 competitions versus another school that wants to pay more.” It is a difference in institutional philosophy rather than level of competition.

· There is not a “too large.” Emphasis on regional competition not a national championship. Large membership disadvantage is that it is too diverse. Are we competing against similar institutions? Solutions: Creation of criteria/opportunities. Still allowing institutional autonomy. Subdivision based on philosophical elements.

· Too big already! Subgroups within DIII that relates philosophy and practice of institutions and conferences. Group more restricted practices together in championship groups. Much like DI in I-A and I-AA, DIII could be based on levels of restrictions within the bounds of the overall philosophy.

· Championships – too large only deals with championships for me. Midwest Conference. What else would negatively impact growth? What is the downside of going 450, etc? To add 25 members by 2010 doesn’t seem like terribly rapid growth to me. After 450, extended growth – what happens after 2010? Ratio changes for access to championships. Can leagues accommodate two to three more members or will there be more leagues for them? That’s when it gets complicated. Adjust ratio. Institutions should be comfortable with conference they are in. Maybe have to raise dues. I think independents are ones that need to be nervous about this. 450 – how many more institutions are there out there who want to be members? There are a finite number of institutions. Not new colleges being started at rapid pace. NAIA – most would probably go to Division II because of athletic aid. Disconcerted when hear discussion of AQ numbers. Seems to fly into the face of Division III philosophy. Rather have competitive contest opportunity in regular season than post season, personally.

· Responsibility falls on institution to pick “right” conference. Access to championships ratio should be adjusted according to voice of membership. May need to increase NCAA membership dues by each institution so that postseason opportunities may be “appropriately” funded.

· Schools will join if we don’t put parameters in place to limit growth. Could create a problem eventually. More growth may cause issues – greater diversity among schools. Cost of championships will increase with membership growth – may lead to increase in dues, etc. Can we increase portion of budget that goes to Division III? Will become issue – stricter requirements on sports sponsorship at each institution. Access to championships – independent schools must be addresses on several levels. Do they have greater chance to go to championships than schools in a conference?

· First step is to determine whether growth should be allowed. Growth would increase differences in philosophy and practice already in existence. Annual dues (conferences, etc.)/monetary concerns. Conference growth may help independents. Number of sports sponsored at the institution should be considered.

· Reform was to hold the division together. Growth will have negative impact on championships. Want more real DIII schools; more difficult access is preferred to limiting access to membership. Eliminate championships needs discussion. Too much emphasis?

· Additional division – look at size, private/public, sports sponsorship, philosophy (what is it? Where has it gone? How does the division come together?). Do you drop Pools B and C – eliminate pools? Mid week games?

· Make a Division IV.

· Raise 80 percent of budget for championships. Look at new playing division (subdivision). Cap DIII membership at 450. Eliminate national championships (end at either conference or regional).

· It may be time to cap?? But dividing championships should not be an option. Budgetary constraints by the NCAA paying for two championships will be a substantial burden and water down the championship itself. It will further divide us.

· What is too large? Access to championships is important. If rate stays same it doesn’t matter. Can budget support fully funded championships as growth increases? Raising dues should not be a problem. Needs to be done incrementally if it is done.

· Increase NCAA Division III annual dues. Consider changing ratio access to championships. Moratorium on new membership. Consider subdivision because of size of Division III. Diversity of Division III will drive subdivision. How are Division III departments titled? Athletics, Athletics and Recreation, Athletics and Physical Education.

· In regards to championship and growth, one suggestion is to increase the requirements for an AQ, maybe to 10 instead of seven. This would encourage smaller conferences to merge. And I would favor making championships timing the freedom to expand (weeks) to the size of the bracket. Allow the championship the freedom to decide what is best for the championship and bracket size.

· What are the concerns? What are the differences from 430 to 500? Access to championships if current dues are held steady – not able to support DIII. AQ – only one bid per conference. Pool C suffers. Financial impact. Justify money being spent on DIII. DIII doesn’t want to make schools have a certain number of sports sponsored. Subdivide based on sport sponsorship.

· Don’t limit DIII – it should be open to everyone. Split into subdivisions – there are already large disparities between DIII schools. Start from scratch and let schools realign into subdivisions. It will be better down the line. How do you deal with the extra costs? Two committees for championships? Maybe base splits on how different institutions eel about rules (e.g., some institutions want more/less sports sponsorship). National championships for DIII-A and only regional for DIII-B? Not all sports the same. What do you do with sports like field hockey versus basketball?

· Break up into DIII-A, DIII-AA, DIII-AAA (subdivide). Create regional championships, create different criteria for which institutions may join one of three – realign “like to like” – different standards. Cons – more governance structure required for each of three subdivisions. Have regional championships, then a small field for a national championship.

· Go with DIII-A and DIII-AA (self-select by conference). DIII-A plays national championship. DIII-AA plays regional championships. Allow conference realignments with guaranteed AQs during a two to three year window.

· Not limit growth. Have two divisions – 3A – national championship; 3B – regional championship. Institutions would self selection which division NCAA would set up basic criteria. Should we limit growth? (8 voters) 4-4. The two divisions would only be for championship play, not to split division.

· Management of growth should be disengaged from championship issue. While growth may affect access to championship, it may not affect critical issues such as criteria for selection (e.g., national versus regional consideration or combining Pools B and C).

Dues should be increased significantly (perhaps to $5,000 per institution) so that we can develop a philosophical basis for fiscal development within Division III that is not dependent on the CBS contract.

· The growth affects DIII in two ways: (1) Access to championships – currently many good teams are not participating in the championships. (2) Iniquities exist in the championships because some types of schools have a competitive advantage in terms of their emphasis (philosophy) cost of attendance, number of students, etc.

Open up discussion with Division II leadership, who are losing members. It should be possible for a Division II division to exist that is nonscholarship. We currently have many schools in Division III that have the same profile as most Division II schools. They should not be competing in Division III practically and philosophically.

· There aren’t really a lot more schools who are eligible for one reason or another. Championships will be maxed out in two to three sports by 2010 only, so not a problem.

· Issues – unwieldy, costly, less access to championships, etc. Do you deny student access at NAIAs? Solutions – freeze non NCAAs; accommodate from within NCAA. First determine the philosophy, then address size issues; first set operating rules, then address possible growth. Management at NCAA should say how many schools they NCAA can support. How much NCA $ comes to DIII – should funds be connected to access instead of to revenue generation.

· How much goes up yearly? NAIA schools changing to Division II and Division III schools going Division II. Should we be in the position to say stop growth? Don’t want to be an exclusion group; NCAA accommodate any desires for access to championships. Revise championship.

· I don’t think 450 is too large. Expansion to four weeks solves many issues related to access. At base level, growth concerns are access to championships concerns. NAIA has how many members? What is our realistic maximum? Growth issues are really, in my mind, all championship access issues. If fields expand and tournaments expand to four weeks, many concerns I have about maximum membership numbers are not a factor. We have addressed these issues with the six institution yearly cap on new members. 450 by 2010 or 480 by 2016 doesn’t worry me at all. Expand to four weeks in team championships, keep the ratio and regional emphasis and move on.

· a. Discussion of who wants to join Division III.

(1) Division II moving down.

(2) NAIA schools.

b. Is growth of Division III too debilitating to handle?

As long as championship money is there.

· Managing growth…national invitational tournament. Conference split away Division III competition. Regional problem. Transfer/student-athlete – long season. Unfair to student-athlete. Limits access.

· Undertone that there might be subdivision versus creation of another division (general feeling of those sitting around the table prior to this forum). Management of growth – not closely of the growth. Allow national invitational tournament. Division III school – align accordingly to nontraditional seasons. Wasn’t overwhelming majority when voting on P&P seasons during 2004 convention. Conferences are split philosophically. Non “red shirt” rule is too harsh. Unfair for different sport seasons.

· 2010 – 450 members anticipated.

- Championships access

- Budgetary issues

- Championship funding

- AQ conference (Pool A) at least seven sponsored

(Pool B)

(Pool C)

- Four week championship schedule/midweek

- Subdivision – new division

· How would the division be split? Splitting seems to be an option, but with this suggestion there exists too many questions.

· I don’t think we can become too big. It may force some choices, but I’m not sure we need to be proactive on those issues.

· Divide Division III by enrollment?

· Haven’t been able to solve; not enough time to think about any solutions.

· No – under current members of approximately 420 schools. Even at 450, the division would still be able to function and conduct postseason championships. If it did become “too large,” the idea of subdivision does not seem to be an alternative or a solution.

· - Geographic imbalance of Division III;

- NAIA may be feeding growth of Division III.

- Subdivisions of Division III – DIII-A and DIII-AA.

- Provisional process has regulated growth – six schools per year entering process.

- If philosophy is common, it doesn’t mean we have to curb growth.

- Don’t want to be school on the outside if membership growth is closed.

- Division III is growing because its philosophy is clear – attracts schools seeking active membership.

-“Regional” competition isn’t truly in-region competition.

- Schools drop out of provisional membership because Division III schools are geographically concentrated.

- Perception is not necessarily reality for Division III.

- “DIV” – academic elites/selectivity may be reviewed in future years (2010).

- Division III championship – reflective of membership.

· Work with Division II leadership to explore a nonscholarship Division II membership classification. Would help Division II with its membership issues. Further explore a cap on Division III total membership.

· Increase percentage of funds obtained from Division III. Increase Division III membership fees.

· Yes, too large. Favor subdivision by similar academic goals and profiles – especially along the public/private lines. It is quite possible that conferences are already aligned in this way, so subdividing by conference should be workable.

· Maybe growth isn’t an issue…might be good for conference. Solve the problems to allow access. Problems with growth: Championships access; Input and involvement. Attack this then move on. Differential in size.

· Not too large. Moratorium on new membership. Do not support a split.

· - If size becomes an issue? Growth is an issue.

- Size forces to make decisions/change ratio – as large in national championships. Move in that direction if money becomes an issue.

- Moratorium on new membership.

- Think subdivision is inevitable – sports sponsorship. Diversity of school philosophy will lead us down this road. Public versus private. Based on philosophy/broad based programs.

- Last proposed split/higher/more competitive institutions.

- Subdivision – raises concern about funds for new division.

· Subdivision based on public versus private. (a) Differences in admission requirements; (b) Differences in ___ attendance; (c) Differences in financial aid. Lower cost and greater financial aid leads to inequitable competition. More workable alternative would be subdivision based on size of instititution based on full time enrollment or ___.

· a. Create two divisions – public/private. Based on size.

b. or redefine conferences to be more equitable in ______ and cost of attendance.

Challenge is to find solutions ____ ______ diversity of pressures on individual institution.

· Look into Division split or additional division. Public versus private? Size? Geographical? Academic?

· D4: Enrollment; philosophy; private/public; sports. Drop B/C Pool. Add more mid-week championship games. Why not size cap – too much diversity?

· Find a way to cast out schools who do not adhere to Division III philosophy.

· Too large already – individual needs. Not unwieldy. Conferences give opportunity for autonomy opportunity through AQs. Regional moratorium growth; subdivision. It is an NCAA executive committee issue – not just a Division III issue. Provide a model. Where is growth coming from? Go to Division III-A and III-AA.

· Subdivision! The other questions are then moot.

· What is relevancy of size? Accommodate growth as long as philosophy remains.

· Subdivision is a reasonable solution to growth…along some set of principles.

· No – not concerned!

· Division III is fine just the way it is.