VFG Communication #4 Comments
|
Total Responses - 52 responses representing 30
conferences as of Responses grouped alphabetically by conference. |
Question
#1 Alternative season ending opportunities. We are not interested in this option-
Question
#2 sports sponsorship- this should be an institutions decision
Question
#3 conference alignment- keep the current legislation otherwise you would have
schools jumping conferences too easily and for the wrong reasons- the two year waiting period is fair.
Laura
Edholm, senior woman administrator/associate athletics director,
Question
1: I would like to know more from
the folks who would actually consider "Option 1" a true option and
would like to consider it before I would say no to it. "Option 2" is almost there
anyway, although I consider it a secondary option (after a first shot at NCAA
qualification).
Question
2: Enrollment can fluctuate significantly, so I am not inclined to favor using
this as a part of the equation. My
conference has a wide range of institutional populations, and everyone seems
content to offer as many sports as makes sense for their campus. It's not broken, don't fix it.
Question
3: In my experience, change happens
slowly. I do not foresee crazy
musical chairs of conference realignment, simply because CEOs do not want that
kind of instability. I would be
open to a one-time, three-year window where realignment could occur without
sacrificing AQ opportunities as long as a minimum core of schools which
currently receive an AQ (4? 5?) form a new conference (or realign among several
conferences) stay together. I have
long heard complaints that there are any number of conferences that were formed
out of convenience (as opposed to a defined set of similarities), motivated at
least in part by the lure of an AQ.
A one-time, three-year window to allow discussion and realignment (or
not) might help set Div. III on a more even keel at the "local"
level. An AQ (or fear of losing it)
should not be the driving force behind conference affiliation. Take that penalty out of the picture.
Donna M.
Ledwin, commissioner/SID, Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference
Question
- #1 -
We would
favor allowing Conferences to elect to participate in an Alternative
Season-Ending Opportunity and have that be excluded from the playing season
limitations. We don't believe
our institution would be interested in choosing this alternative but would not
want to limit those conferences whose institutions would.
Question
#2 -
The
current minimum required number of sports sponsorships seems adequate. We would not support mandating a linkage
between enrollment and sports sponsorships at NCAA institutions. Conference requirements and student demand
are factors that should help to maximize student participation without an
enrollment/proportionality test.
Institutions should not face additional mandates in determining to what
degree their athletic programs support or enhance their mission and meet the
specific needs of their students.
Question
#3 -
We
believe institutions should not face any additional punitive consequences for
conference realignment (i.e. waiting periods or loss of AQ opportunity) in
multi-sport or single-sport conferences and would favor a re-evaluation of
current institutional consequences.
Brian
Parker
FSU
Women's Soccer
Office:
301-687-4356
sports.frostburg.edu
Brian
Parker, women’s soccer coach, Frostburg St. University, Allegheny
Mountain Collegiate Conference
Response to
Communication #4 – VFG
1. Alternative Season-ending Opportunities
Neither
option is likely to be viable. My
discussions with a few of the coaches and student-athletes, and my own
observations, suggests that one of the major attractions of being part of the
NCAA is the opportunity for post-season NCAA Championships. Allowing “limited season-ending
experience” sounds too much like existing conference tournaments. Exempted post season opportunity smacks
of the direction that “Bowl Games” went with D I football - with
all the divisions that has led to!
2. Sports Sponsorship
The D III
philosophy of maximizing the number and variety of athletics opportunities is
only one of the philosophies listed.
As (or more) important is the philosophy recognizing the unique missions
of many D III institutions. This is
embedded in the Manual statement “Assure that athletics programs support
the institution’s educational mission by financing, staffing and controlling
the programs through the same general procedures as other departments of the
institution.” Tying the
minimum number of sports to undergraduate enrollment may well undermine this
principle as each school is unique in the way it handles each of these matters. For example many smaller schools choose
to field more sports, and may well have much higher tuition and fees, than
larger ones because this is more in line with their own missions. The NCAA should simply set a base number
for all schools – whether it be five, four, or eight sports – and
then allow schools to make their own choices based on their institution’s
philosophy.
3. Conference Alignment
Yes,
conferences should be allowed to realign with less than a two-year waiting
period. In particular, it is
conceivable that a conference could be “hostage” to a school that
threatens to leave if it is on the border of AQ numbers. This would hold both for single and
multi-sport conferences. It is less
clear to me about what should be the case with the formation of new
conferences.
Kurt Beron,
faculty athletics representative,
Question 1:
We do not support alternative season-ending opportunities. Two points of we do not support from one
or both of the options are 1) the financial burden on the institutions, and 2)
the season-ending opportunity counting as part of the countable limits.
Question 2:
We feel that the number of sports sponsored per institution per gender should
be based on undergraduate enrollment.
One sport per season per gender seems reasonable for institutions with
small enrollments. It also seems
reasonable that institutions with large undergraduate enrollments should
sponsor more sports per season per gender.
This would not only provide more opportunities for students
(philosophy), but also might level out the financial playing field within DIII.
Question 3:
We do not support any change in the current legislation in regard to
conference alignment and the two-year waiting period for AQ eligibility. Conference hopping for the sake of AQs
should not be encouraged by the NCAA. Colleges should be committed to a
conference, not an AQ.
Answer to question #3 from AWCC interim part-time
commissioner:
Virtual Focus Group #4 Question #3
The AWCC strongly supports the opportunity for a
conference’s to undergo realignment without being subject to the two-year
waiting period. The waiting period
is punitive and does prohibit, or hinder, conference realignments that will benefit
the institutions and student-athletes involved.
This is a current issue for the AWCC. Three members have made the decision to
become co-educational and, to better serve the needs of their student-athletes,
have (or will be) seeking new conference affiliations. The AWCC is committed at present to
remaining a single-sex conference. Our ability to retain our automatic
qualification is important and we feel should not be negatively impacted by the
sound philosophic changes of some of our member institutions.
Donna
Miller, director of athletics,
Question #1 - Alternative Season-Ending opportunities: We would NOT support the development of alternative season-ending opportunities. While some sports may be in favor of such an opportunity, most were not. Option 1 was not preferred due to the fact that the dates of competition would count towards countable limits. Option 2 was not an option either because of budget concerns (no NCAA funding).
Question
#2 - Sports Sponsorship: We do NOT
support linking undergraduate enrollment with sports sponsorship. If an institution cannot field enough
teams, they should not be a NCAA school.
Question #3 - Conference Alignment:
We are NOT in favor of changing the current legislation. We should NOT make it easy for schools
to jump from conference to conference.
Keep the two year waiting period. (This is really not that common at the
Division III level.)
Betsy Witman, senior woman administrator,
With regards to question #1, we would be in favor
of Option #1. In some sense this
would not be all that different from the ECACs. However, we don't agree that
participation in this type of event should count toward the playing season
limitations. Mainly b/c of the
problem we are currently facing with Football. Those Football schools that went to the
ECAC tournament used an additional week of practice (not exempted per bylaw
17.1.7g). With an 18 week season,
this only allows those schools 4 weeks of a "NT" season, while those
schools that went to the NCAA tournament and those that did not participate in
post-season are still permitted 5 weeks.
With regards to question #2, we would be in favor
of moderate increases to the sport sponsorship minimums. We do not feel that applying sponsorship
minimums based on enrollment is practical.
With regards to question #3, we believe that if
the 2nd phase of "the Future of Division III" leads to some major
philosophical differences among conferences institutions than "yes",
conferences should be given a period of time to realign without losing AQ. However, we are still not clear on the
point of this question. Wouldn't
there need to be mass & major conference shifting in order for this problem
to exist? Does the MC/PC really expect this to happen? Maybe we are just naive.
Thanks for your work on this.
Josh McArthur, director of athletics,
Question #1 - Alternative Season-Ending Opportunities
I believe that member institutions should have the
opportunity to seek championship competition outside the NCAA. In a similar fashion to many state
scholastic organizations where private and/or parochial schools may compete in
a different season-ending competition than public schools, the member
institutions in the Association should be permitted this choice.
I believe that it should be an entire conference commitment
for a specified period of time, which would permit the NCAA committees to plan
accordingly, and it should be an exempted opportunity.
Finally, NCAA funds should be allocated for NCAA
competition.
Question #2 - Sports Sponsorship
I do not think it is appropriate to tie sports sponsorship
to enrollment. It is the charge of
each institution to determine what offerings should be made available on its
campus. It would be detrimental to
all if member institutions dropped offerings because of a formula that states
that the minimum is "X" for its enrollment, rather than the X+Y that
it currently offers.
That said, I do believe that there should be an increase in
the number of team sport offerings across the board for membership in Division
III. 5-and-5 should be raised to 6-and-6, or one team sport should be required
for each season. Otherwise, it is
much too easy to focus most resources on one sport which seldom "provides
equitable athletics opportunities for males and females and give equal emphasis
to men's and women's sports."
Question #3 - Conference Alignment
I am curious about how a designated period of time for conference
realignment would benefit the overall membership. Would this set off an "ACC-Big
East" raid of conferences? Say
Franklin & Marshall was invited to join the NESCAC, the Centennial may feel
compelled to look to the Middle Atlantic and Capital conferences or elsewhere
to replace F&M ... and the MAC and CAC would do the same.
If the MC's idea is to permit "like" institutions
to align without penalty ... I could see some benefit.
Steve Ulrich, commissioner, Centennial Conference
Please accept the following as an institutional response to the questions contained in Communication #4.
In regard to question #1, our institution would not be opposed to the development of alternative season-ending opportunities for other colleges and conferences; however, we would not be among those institutions who would pursue this option. We would elect to retain the present NCAA Division III format for post season championship play. If an alternative season ending format was adopted (for institutions that did not want to participate in the post season NCAA Division III championships), we would favor option #1 - season ending opportunities that restricted such play within the 18 to 19 week playing season for the sport in question. We feel that option #2, post season play outside of the 18 to 19 playing season, would compete with and perhaps weaken the present Division III championship format.
In regard to question #2, we believe that institutions with less than 500 students be required to maintain the present sports sponsorship requirement of "five and five". We feel that such a requirement facilitates conference institutions to schedule an appropriate number of contests within their respective conferences. On the other hand, we favor that institutions of over 3,000 students be required to have a requirement of more than five and five. This would allow the student body more opportunities to participate in intercollegiate competition. It would also preclude institutions from allocating disproportionate amounts of funding into a limited number of athletic teams.
In regard to question #3, we believe that if a conference loses a member institution so that its membership falls below seven (the number of institutions needed for its conference champion to earn an automatic qualifying bid to post season play), it should not be penalized if it realigns itself with a new seventh institution.
Mike Feldman, faculty athletics representative,
Both our conference coaches committee and some colleagues at our institution had the following thoughts regarding the three proposals:
Item #1 - There either was indifference or an openness to alternative season ending experiences. Neither of the groups I spoke with appeared excited about or eager to opt into the possible new formats.
Item #2 - There was support for investigating the issue of tying sport sponsorship requirements to the student population.
Item #3 - There were no opinions expressed regarding the 'waiting period' exception if a conference realigns in a timely fashion. Surveyed parties seemed to trust in the decision of the ruling parties.
I hope this surveyed information is helpful to the committee.
Jim Barnes, coach,
Question
#1 - Alternative Season-Ending Opportunities. I believe that the options are viable
concepts, however I believe that the NCAA tournament is what makes competing so
exciting. If I had to choose an option, I would say the second, despite the
legislative changes.
Question
#2 Sports Sponsorship. I think it
makes sense to use an enrollment-to-sports sponsored ratio. However, coming from a small enrollment
school, I like the options we have and I know that many students come here
because they want to play multiple sports.
If we decrease the number of sports offered many students would not be
able to play multiple sports.
Question #3 - Conference Alignment. No response to question #3.
Corey Holton, student-athlete,
Not much
of a response from the Empire8 group for any of the three questions.
Option #2
for Question #1 seems best.
Obtaining entire conference commitment could be problematic.
For
Question #2, institutions should control number of sports to sponsor within
existing NCAA guidelines.
For
Question #3, existing conferences experiencing a membership change should not
be penalized for adding new teams to meet minimum requirements if accomplished
within a reasonable time frame.
Ken Kutler, athletics director,
Alternative season ending opportunities.
I am not certain enough information is provided
to really illustrate how allowing institutions to opt put of the championships
would help manage growth. If these conferences were to opt out, the field size
would change and the division could potentially save some money but how can
these funds be potentially used to manage growth? If it was presented as an
option I would think those opportunities should be treated the same way that
the NCAA Tournament would be treated and they could be exempted.
Sport Sponsorship.
Tying sport sponsorship requirements to
enrollment is an interesting proposition. How would a current institution be
handled who currently does not meet the set ratio? Are they no longer a DIII
member or are current members grandfathered? Legislation like this typically
grandfathers institutions so the impact it could have on managing growth may be
minimal but perhaps helpful.
Conference realignment.
I am not certain why there may be a significant
philosophical shift from the NCAA on the issue of AQ requirements. When the
legislation was enhanced a couple of years ago it was partly because there was
concern that conferences were forming solely because of AQ and not for other
reasons such as similar institutional philosophies, profiles and the like. To
go from that to now suggest that institutions/conferences can do as they wish
when they wish is puzzling to me and I would like to know why this is now being
considered and how it would manage membership growth? In addition, this could
not trump a conference’s legislation which may require a member to
provide a set amount of notice (ex. 2 years) before leaving or 1-2 years before
fully accepting a new member.
I do not see much in these questions that offers
a real solution as to how best manage membership growth but I suppose some of
then could help contribute in a small way. The sport sponsorship question could
potentially manage it in that it may eliminate some member institutions but are
we talking about contraction or managing growth? I just would have liked to see
rationales for each of these notions that would give us better context as to
why these may be good options.
Chuck Mitrano, commissioner, Empire 8
Question #1 - Both Options, don't like the idea of entire conference committing or the multiple year declaration. Seems like everyone would have to join NCCAA or the USCAA to be able to do this. Our coaches like and idea that would allow more contest such as baseball and softball.
Question #2 - Everyone should have the same requirements concerning sports sponsorship.
Question #3 - We feel that no more than one year waiting period for automatic qualification.
I forwarded a copy of all to our coaches and this seemed to be some of their opinions. Still think spring sports should have the opportunity to play more. Have not seen any change in student/athletes spending more time in the library or engaging in other extra curricular activities.
Phil Williamson, athletics director,
The AD, FAR, and president of
Question #1. We would not support the development of alternative season-ending opportunities. We do not believe that our institution or our conference would be interested in this alternative. Therefore we do not believe that either of the alternatives presented would be of significant benefit to the membership of Division III.
Question #2. We do not believe that a sports sponsorship requirement should be linked to an institution's total undergraduate enrollment. Therefore we do not think that institutions with less than 500 students should not have a lower sports sponsorship requirement; nor do we think that institutions with more than 3,000 students should have a higher requirement. As an aside, we would favor increasing to six or seven the number of sports that a school is required to sponsor.
Question #3. We believe that the membership should have the opportunity to realign within a designated period of time without being subject to the two-year waiting period. We believe that this option should be open to both multi-sport and single-sport conferences. This would benefit the overall membership by protecting the interests of the schools that remain in a conference that a particular school leaves. For example, as things stand, if seven schools in a conference play football and one leaves, the remaining six must bring in a seventh and are subject to the two year waiting period--while the school that left is free to join another conference without being subject to such a period.
Jay Moseley, ceo,
Question #1 - Alternative Season-Ending Opportunities. Allowing conferences the opportunity to
opt out of NCAA championships and compete in an alternative season-ending
opportunity funded by entities other than the NCAA would help the division
manage the anticipated growth of its championships. Below are two format
options. The first option
incorporates a season-ending opportunity into the existing playing and practice
season limits; these contests would have to be included in the 18 or 19 week
playing season for the sport. The
second option incorporates the season-ending opportunity in the true
post-season, where, just like NCAA championships, the contests would not have
to be included in the 18 or 19 week playing season. The second option
would require legislative changes.
Would you support the development of alternative
season-ending opportunities? Do you
believe your institution and/or conference would be interested in this alternative? Which of the two options do you believe
would be of greater benefit to the membership?
Neither our conference nor our
institution has an interest in engaging in alternative season-ending
championship opportunities. Having the whole conference agree on a sport
by sport basis is not an option that seems palatable.
Question #2 – Sports Sponsorship. Current
legislation requires all institutions to sponsor five (5) sports for men; five
(5) sports for women including three (3) team sports for each gender. Average undergraduate enrollment at
Division III institutions is 2,338, and average sports sponsorship is 16.7,
resulting in an overall average of one team for every 140 students. The
smallest Division III enrollment is 250, and the largest is 20,000. There
are 12 institutions with enrollment of 500 or less; 99 with 1,000 or less; 237
with enrollment between 1,000 – 3,000; and 81 institutions with
enrollment greater than 3,000. (Note: Enrollment numbers are based
on 2003-04 institutional demographic data and exclude provisional members).
With the idea of maximizing student participation
opportunities while also encouraging a broad base of sport offerings, we
believe that institutional enrollment should NOT be a determining factor in the
required number of sports required.
It is reasonable, as an association, to mandate 5 sports in three
seasons for men and women.
While a small institutional
enrollment concentrates the student-athlete in a smaller pool of persons, the
size of an institution is not the critical determinant of resourcing for the
program. Requiring all sizes
of institutions to sponsor the same number of sports assures that resources are
not concentrated in a precious few sports at the exclusion of others. It
discourages favorable status given to some sports which may be perceived as
more valued than others when lesser number of sports would be required.
At the other extreme, requiring more
sports of larger schools also is not desired. Although requiring more sports
might have the net effect of spreading out larger pools of resources,
additional sports also require additional facilities and competitive
venues. Artificially setting an arbitrary number of sports does not
account for student interests and abilities, building a schedule and travel
repercussions.
Question #3 - Conference Alignment. Current legislation requires a two-year
waiting period for automatic qualification eligibility in certain circumstances
(i.e., a new institution joins the conference in order for the conference to
reach the minimum of seven institutions sponsoring a particular sport).
Do you believe the membership should have the opportunity to
realign within a designated period of time without being subject to the
two-year waiting period (i.e. should it be permissible for a conference to lose
an institution and not immediately be penalized)? If so, should this
option be open to both multi-sport and single-sport conferences? How
would this benefit the overall membership?
We DO believe that it is reasonable to allow a
designated period of time to allow conference realignment without penalty. As the membership of conferences shift,
some institutions and their student athletes should not be penalized by the
decision of other institutions to affiliate with a different conference.
The period of time in transition should be clear and limited to no more
than two seasons of competition. Further, we believe that institutions
who decide to change conference affiliation should come under NCAA scrutiny to
guarantee that the best interests of new and former conference are protected.
We would welcome any further conversation about these
questions and look forward to our time together in our conference meetings to
discuss them further.
Becky Hull, senior woman administrator,
Question
#1 - My feeling is that institutions and their conferences should have the
option to decide how they want to handle any alternative season ending
opportunities. I would support
option 1. Without knowing more
about option 2, I would lean against support at this time.
Question
#2 - I would definitely not support the requirement of schools with more than
3,000 students to sponsor more than 5 sports. Part of the beauty of DIII is the
autonomy schools have in deciding the emphasis they want to put into
athletics. I am not sure about the
lessening of sport sponsorship for the very small schools. On the one hand, it seems reasonable to
make allowances for institutions who may be struggling to support 5
sports. On the other hand it seems
prudent for DIII to have sport sponsorship requirements that require at least
some commitment from its members.
If forced to make a decision at this time I would say keep the
requirement at 5.
Question
#3 - I believe the 2 year year waiting period could be eliminated or reduced to
1 year. I see no possible negative
effect of such a change. It seems
that if a conference wants to make the commitment to the minimum number of
schools needed for auto qualification we should not hinder that. We want strong conferences.
Ted Bulling, coach, Nebraska Wesleyan, Independent
Question # 1 - If there is even one conference that would be
interested in this option; we should try to accommodate them with legislation
and would be supportive of option #2.
That being said, we do not think it is anything our institution would be
interested in.
Question #2- This is a sore point for us as a
"large" institution. Our
size does not relate to those that may have athletic eligibility or interest in
participation. Sports sponsorship
should not be linked to undergraduate enrollment.
If there is any increase in sport sponsorship, it needs to
be factored with gender equity. Our
campus is 67% female, so for every male team we had to add (and we would have
to add a sport if the sponsorship increased), we have to add two participation
opportunities for women.
Question #3 - This one seems potentially chaotic if there is
an open window to realign. We do
support reducing the waiting period to one year.
Debby DeAngelis, officer/director of athletics,
Question #1 - Alternative season ending
opportunities:
Option #1
Option #2:
Exempted Post Season