VFG Communication #5 Comments
|
Total Responses – 31 responses representing
23 conferences as of Responses grouped alphabetically by conference. |
1.
Conference ISSG: As a
conference commissioner (and former member and chair of the Membership Committee),
I am not in support of a conference ISSG as is proposed. The institutional ISSG is strongly based
in NCAA legislation, i.e., there is a connection between the questions in the
institutional ISSG and compliance with NCAA rules. There is no such connection implied with
the conference ISSG. I am not
opposed to self-examination from time to time, but this proposed ISSG smacks of
encroachment on conference autonomy; there is virtually no connection to NCAA
requirements. To further link it to
a window when realignment can occur without jeopardizing AQ rights is a crazy
leap--I am not grasping what one has to do, or should do, with the other. They are separate issues and should be
left that way. Bottom line: Any kind of self-study based on subjective
criteria should be voluntary, and any kind of mandatory self-study should be
based on NCAA legislation (of which there is next to none for conferences).
2.
Incorporation of AD Direct Report:
All for it, but you're going to risk weakening the involvement of the
CEOs. I will bet that most CEOs
want to delegate to this group because it's how they deal with athletics on
most campuses--it's just a fact.
But I think the AD Direct Report needs to be more in the loop.
3.
Recruitment of minority student-athletes: I am extremely too hesitant to advocate
that the NCAA goes there. While a
noble thought, it strikes me as intruding on member autonomy. Just a gut response, maybe I'm
misinterpreting something...
Donna
Ledwin, commissioner/SID, Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference
Question
1...
I am
confounded by the fact that Division III allows total institutional flexibility
in minimum academic requirements and progress, but continue to deal with
legislation which allows less and less institutional control of their
teams...i.e. number of contests, out-of-season competition, and sport
minimums. Legislation should
provide for some minimum academic requirements while allowing for more
flexibility in sport operational choices.
Question
2...
One issue
that could be addressed is overall size of the division. If sports are to be capped at 64 bids,
it seems that there should be a time when the overall number of teams in
Division III would need to be addressed.
Perhaps some greater flexibility in multi-division membership with
Division II could be looked at.
Ken
Krsolovic, athletics director,
From my view, sportsmanship is a major issue in all three
NCAA Divisions. Civility has been
decreasing and we must make every good effort to increase good sportsmanship
through the following:
1.
Team
introductions in basketball.
2.
Treatment
of game officials in a sportsmanlike manner.
3.
Increasing
the number of student-athletes interest in becoming game officials on
graduation.
4.
Place
an emphasis on “Game Administrators” at each team sport.
5.
Define
responsibilities in game administration to include:
a.
Head
Coach is responsible for the conduct of all personnel on the team bench to
include players, coaches, managers, trainers, game statisticians, etc.
b.
Game
officials are responsible for everything that occurs between the lines on the
playing field/court.
c.
Game
Administrator responsible for everything that occurs in the stands, behind the
fences (i.e., baseball, softball) and in cooperation with game officials for
fan decorum. The head coach is the
single person with the most influence on players and fans reactions to game
situations.
A best practices paper on creating good sportsmanship would
be desirable. The professional
influence has permeated the college scene in a strong manner.
Further, deregulation of legislation continues to be a
desirable outcome to simplify rules and regulations for better understanding.
Fred
Jacoby, commissioner, American Southwest Conference
Proposed Legislation:
Best Practices:
·
I
support the 6th person suggestions.
·
Our
institutions should have programs in place for minority recruitment and the
degree the school wants to pursue minority recruitment should be an
institutional concern- I view this as more of a campus issue than an NCAA
issue.
·
I
am opposed to any further required academic reporting. We are starting to
look like d-I with the financial aid reporting and the lack of trust among
d-III schools, and I can see all of this reporting legislation flowing from the
d-III reform agenda and the future of D-III
discussions going on now. I
don’t like it. D-III is supposed to be different from the other two
divisions.
·
CEO
involvement, trustee involvement, and recruitment of minority coaches are all
worthy goals to pursue. Each campus will evaluate how that is done and to
the degree their leadership wants to be involved.
·
The
last four areas all seem to be campus issues as opposed to things the
association should be involved with, except for the sportsmanship programming-
I am for enhancing those programs.
Further Review:
Scott
Devine, director of athletics and recreation, St. Mary’s
1. Where does the growth of D-3 reach a point where we are unmanageable? Considering the proposal to cap bracket size at 64, is 448 our max? Are we going to grow beyond 448 and not have a 7 to 1 berth ratio for championships?
2. I
do not understand how a conference self-study will accomplish what you wish to
achieve. Look at our conference. Do
you honestly think a self-study process will change the conference in any
meaningful sort of way? It seems
like another bureaucratic step and adds more paperwork.
I hope this is the kind of feedback you were looking for.
Geoff
Miller,
I think the conference self-study guide is very important in order to establish a conference-based philosophy. I think all members of a conference should have the same philosophy; otherwise the conference will not function as it should.
I think the academic success of student-athletes is very important. I think this is both on the students' and the schools' end of things. I think the students need to work hard, but I also think sometimes the institution needs to be more understanding of the student's participation on a sports team. I think the academic success of student athletes should definitely be stressed at all institutions.
I think campus integration with student athletes is very important. I think students need to be involved in other parts of the campus besides simply athletics. I also think that athletes should not be a separated group. Just because you are an athlete, doesn't mean you cannot do anything else. I think the administration of the school has to have an active part in athletics.
My one other thought is that the member committee should continue to explore the issue of Increasing the minimum number of required student-athlete participants in selected individual sports, if the sport is used to meet the minimum sport sponsorship requirements. I think we need to make sure that these sports are really wanted/needed at the schools, and will be supported while at the schools.
Kelli
McErlean, student-athlete,
Q # 1: Re: proposed legislation item six, I suggest adding a phrase to possible legislation that would indicate that the administration of an institution's athletics program should be integrated into the campus culture and educational mission by regarding coaches as teachers in Division III institutions.
Such a statement would clearly identify the integrative nature of athletics and help counter the Department of Labor's lack of clarity on the role of the coach within educational institutions. It could also bolster an individual institution's position that coaches are regarded as educators and are therefore exempt from FLSA hourly regulations.
If the Council would not permit such an addition to that piece of legislation, then I would suggest a resolution identifying coaches as teacher/educators within the integrated structure of intercollegiate athletics in Division III.
-Two options for
addressing the issue of coaches as educators at the 2006 NCAA convention (re:
FLSA regulations)
The NCAA D-III Management Council has endorsed considering
“legislation to amend the D-III philosophy statement to specify that
administration of an institution’s athletics program should be integrated
into that institution’s educational mission and campus
culture.” I recommend adding
a friendly amendment that would identify coaches
as teacher educators within the
integrated structure of intercollegiate athletics. This would clearly connect the role of
coaches in our institutions with the actual FLSA position identifying teachers
who are exempt from hourly wage structures. The DOL description of teachers follows:
#541.303 Teachers. (a) The term ‘employee employed in
a bona fide professional capacity’ in section 13(a) (1) of the Act also
means any employee with a primary duty of teaching, tutoring, instructing or
lecturing in the activity of imparting knowledge and who is employed and
engaged in this activity as a teacher in an educational establishment by which
the employee is employed.
Does this not describe a coach in Division III colleges and
universities?
Such a statement would serve two purposes:
1)
It
would clearly identify the role that coaches play in the educational process of
intercollegiate athletics. Sports do not teach, coaches teach through
sport.
2)
It
would clearly mark coaches as qualified for what they do in an educational
profession. Coaches are
trained with particular qualifications.
With that understanding, coaches would be identified with other
educators defined by the Department of Labor. (Obviously, each college would
need to identify the coach’s job as teaching and certify that these
individuals are actually engaged and evaluated on that basis). The Department of Labor indicates that
exempt teachers include, but are not limited to:
“Regular teachers of gifted or
disabled children; teachers of skilled and semi-skilled trades and occupations;
teachers engaged in automobile driving instruction; aircraft flight
instructors; home economics teachers; and vocal or instrumental music
instructors. Those faculty members who
are engaged as teachers but also spend a considerable amount of their time in
extracurricular activities such as coaching athletic teams or acting as
moderators or advisors in such areas as drama, speech, debate or journalism are
engaged in teaching. Such
activities are a recognized part of the schools’ responsibility in
contributing to the educational development of the student.”
Or, if we did not want to attach the concept to the
contemplated, but not proposed, legislation from the Management Council (or if
the Management Council would not allow it), then we might want to offer a
simple resolution along the lines of:
Given the integrative, educational role of intercollegiate
athletics in NCAA Division III institutions and the vital role that coaches
play as educators in those institutions, be it resolved that coaches be
regarded as teachers in Division III institutions, and that like their faculty
counterparts are exempt from FLSA regulations.
Tony Ladd, director of athletics,
Question #1. Are
there specific issues related to the proposed legislation, best practices and
items for further discussion that you wish to address?
Proposed Legislations
- Conference Self-Study guide could create greater
cohesiveness or may lead to greater awareness of differences and dissolutions
- period of 'institutional realignment' may sufficiently
address divisions that may come about
- not necessary to
state that s-a academic performance 'be, at a minimum, consistent with that of
the general student body"; can not 'average out' people in this area;
there are too many variables not related to athletics as to why GPAs may differ
- cultural & campus
integration - may be appropriate for DIII, worth exploring; tenure?)
Best Practices (this
may have been confusing as to what was asked)
- nothing too
controversial
- what is affordable?
Further Review
- encourage review of minimum sports sponsorship
- encourage review of the minimum number of required
student-athlete participants
Question #2. Is there ONE issue related to the Future
of Division III that does not appear in either grouping that the governance
structure should address? If so, please identify that issue.
No additional issues
offered for discussion.
Jim Barnes, coach,
I distributed materials to my conference colleagues and have
not had too much of a response.
Nonetheless, here is a response to the VFG Communication #5.
People in general were ok with much of what was suggested. There was
concern about increasing the minimum number of required student athlete
participants in selected individual
sports, if the sport is used to meet the minimum sport
sponsorship requirements. Much of
the wording was "soft" with respect to definitive action.
Ken Kutler, athletics director,
Capping championships at 64 is appropriate.
The self-study can be beneficial although putting
forth legislation allowing institutions to leave conferences without loss of AQ
could have serious consequences for some conferences. Institutions should be
able to review that self-study and make their decision of whether or not to
stay or go without legislation compelling them to do so. I don’t think it
is necessary to legislate that.
The philosophy statement amendments are positive.
Relative to oversight of intercollegiate
athletics, while in some ways having the official who oversees athletics more
informed is positive, it could also result in the CEO becoming less engaged and
that would be a huge step backwards.
It also could potentially create a larger divide of discussion between
the AD and CEO – also a bad thing.
Perhaps copying the official on very select communications and
encouraging their attendance at the convention would suffice but I would be
wary of making that group too formal within the organization.
The best practices for academic standards and CEO
involvement are great ideas. The
notion of established best practices of recruiting/hiring minority coach and
staff members are extremely important and should be amongst the top
priorities. In addition, when
engaging constituents relative to sportsmanship, institutional student’s
affairs/student life divisions should be included as well. These areas have
tremendous resources that can be of great benefit with sportsmanship education
and policy.
Chuck Mitrano, commissioner, Empire 8
Question #1:
With regard to items ”under Further
Review," greater attention and regular discussion need to be directed at
the points of increasing minimums for sports sponsorship, number of
participants and number of contests (for selected sports) as the Association
looks to it's future. As a
geographically isolated (only one other NCAA D-III school within the 200 mile
radius) independent member with an FTE of 600 in a very rural region, such
considerations could have an adverse affect on operation and sustainability of
collegiate athletics at our institution.
Simply increasing any of these points would double our operational
cost per student-athlete (per sport) added compared to other
"regionalized" institutions due to increased cost for outfitting and
travel. Adding additional contests
would have a double whammy effect on travel costs as well as missed class time
by our student-athletes. Such
increases that would demand greater resources from the institution for our
athletic programming would create a negative reverberation throughout
the school and adversely impact all other facets of our institutional
operation.
Question # 2:
One issue that is not addressed within the
information is that of eliminating the "in-region" designation within
the primary criteria for championship selection. The original intent of the
"in-region" criterion of limiting program costs and missed class time
for those teams that can stay close to home, has little relevance to
a majority of member scheduling.
Teams are scheduling the best competition necessary to secure
championship opportunities regardless of in region or not. In addition, for schools having to travel
outside their "in-region" designation just to get competition, the
designation is of no help to their chances for post-season selection, and as
such provides no help for institutions who can only scratch at Pool B or C
opportunities.
Chris M. Salani, athletic
director/head women's hockey coach,
A. Future of D III - Phase II Convention
Discussion.
First, in regard to continuing to move ahead with
the future of D III when the dust has not settled on recent changes seems, in
some instances, to be a rush into making changes because that is often
perceived as progress or making things better.
Second, in discussion groups I have participated
in at NCAA Conventions or other NCAA meetings I find most are pretty off of the
cuff and offerings range from on the topic to off the wall concerns and
grievances of special interests that do not represent the majority of D III
thinking. It is surprising that
some of these concepts are given much more credence or stature than they
deserve without first getting the entire memberships interest or feelings about
such concepts.
Question 1 Alternative Season-Ending
Opportunities.
If there are those who would rather opt for a
different season-ending opportunity then let them have their own party! Option 2 is the better of the two
options offered as it is simple and requires a long term commitment to such
alternative endings.
Q # 2 Sports Sponsorship
The current requirements are miserly, unless an
institution has a very small student body.
As a result some institutions gain an advantage over others - within
their conference (which is easier to manage or deal with) and within D III
particularly in gaining entrance to D III Championships as they are able to
specialize and concentrate their resources and facilities because they do not
offer a broad based program for their students.
Q # 3 Conference Alignment
This entire concept is amazing! Under the guise of concerns about AQ
caps and waiting periods for gaining AQs there appears to be those who now want
the entire NCAA D III to ask every member of every conference to undergo a
self-study about why they belong to a given conference.
If new D III institutions join conferences then
it does not really impact the # of AQs and can be easily dealt with by
adjusting the formulas to keep them in line with the caps for AQs for given
sports. While some feel it is
necessary to have equality in these formulas it really is not a practical. The wide variety of types of competitions
and their frequencies are a much more realistic way of establishing how many
AQs a given sport can accommodate.
This has already
been recognized in Football. To think that it is necessary to
establish the same balanced ratio for all sports flies in the face of logic.
So why do we need legislation to create a
Conference Self-Study Guide?
Granted there are some very conferences which on the surface seem to be
unusual - geographically (a D I travel schedule for a D III conference) or
philosophically (public with private or elite academics - admissions and
expectations - with broader less rigorous academic admissions and expectations)
or athletic participation opportunities (best examples - 1] some that do not
offer football in conference that do offer football or 2] some with far fewer
sports than the rest of the conference).
In the latter, athletic offerings those who offer
less certainly have a distinct advantage over those who have greater sports
offerings.
This self-study seems to imply that there are
those who feel that current conferences are comprised of many who did not
seriously consider their affiliation or of institutions that did not carefully
consider the nature, consequences, and impact of an athletic affiliation with
other institutions. This is a very
condescending approach toward conference affiliations.
This approach then deigns (and perhaps divines)
that there should be a division-wide dialogue with the primary purpose of
opening the doors to division-wide realignments without any loss of AQs. This certainly makes it seem that the
real reason for this entire process is to encourage wholesale defections from
existing conferences without any consequences to individual institutions or to
the remaining conferences. The practicalities of such an endeavor are mind
boggling! Have AQs become so
important and conference affiliations so lightly regarded that everything
should be tossed out so that there can be a complete reorganization of D III to
meet unknown general concepts and how they should be applicable to conference
memberships. These unknown general concepts have already been enumerated
as being: 1) institutional missions, 2) academic profiles, 3) geographical
proximity, 4) athletics profiles, 5) diversity (certainly begs for clarification),
6) and CEO involvement.
Who will determine how much variation in each of
these areas is best for a good athletic conference?
It is frightening that a discussion of such a
drastic and significant program is going to be continued with a given goal of
ignoring the current highly successful conference structure and encouraging a
complete realignment of D III athletic affiliations without surveying the
membership!
Tom
Bohlsen, commissioner, Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference
Generally, the recommendations forwarded from the Oversight
Group seem to address the issues deemed most important by the membership. A few comments from me and my colleagues
within our conference:
·
The
growth of D-III still seems to be the primary issue to contend with; STOP
letting championships drive everything and adhere to the D-III philosophy! The legislation proposed to cap brackets
for championships at 64 is wise.
·
The
academic success statement for the D-III philosophy amendment (consistent with
the general student body) does not go far enough; legislation needs to be
prepared that student-athletes need to be in ‘good academic
standing’ with the clear definition that ‘academic probation’
is NOT good academic standing – institutions must certify their
student-athletes EACH semester or quarter, not once at the beginning of the
year as some do currently, resulting in athletes being eligible who have no
chance of succeeding academically.
·
Other
recommendations should not undermine institutional autonomy. For example, a recent article in the
NCAA News written by a student-athlete suggests that the STUDENT-ATHLETE should
decide what he/she will be involved in on campus; the push for integration of
the student into the campus culture is best left to the individual institution
and the individual.
·
These comments
come from one colleague and were too lengthy to summarize: “Thanks for
serving on this group and representing the conference. My response is being sent only to you so
as not to possibly offend anyone else in the conference unintentionally. My own personal concern about the agenda
underway is that it seems to be delving into so many peripheral issues that it
could well lose sight of the primary one—that being the nature and size
of the Division III membership for the future. What kinds of schools really belong in
Division III and how many can the association reasonably service in a quality
manner?
The
flood of NAIA schools who have moved into NCAA III in recent years have
included not only some with compatible missions and philosophies, but also some
who have neither the philosophical underpinnings
nor the financial resources to survive successfully if the traditional definition of Division
III members persists. That
obviously includes some schools close to home.
If
the new financial aid audit procedure works as intended, we may well see a
number of schools faced with mutually undesirable choices—comply
with NCAA rules and not be competitive or look for another affiliation which
will endorse the “preferential packaging”
of financial aid which has allowed them to remain competitive without
funding an institution-wide program that is actually legal (i.e., return to the
NAIA). Similarly, the issue of
sports sponsorship basically boils down to how you make room for the tiny
church-related schools which pool their limited resources into a handful of
sports in an effort to be competitive.
This is in direct opposition to the Division III philosophy of a
broad-based sports program funded equitably. Do such schools really belong in
Division III? Will we redefine the
Division III philosophy to make room for them and, if so, will we lose the
“core” group of traditional Division III schools which have lived
out its mission faithfully over the years as well as some of us who joined
under the assumption that we would be expected to do the same?
I
hope the NCAA will tackle this reality head-on rather than avoid it. The discussions of subdividing Division
III have centered on exactly this question—what types of schools really
belong in Division III and what do we do with those which don’t? I’m
a traditionalist, and I feel strongly that the answer should be to encourage
the latter group to affiliate elsewhere.
The only option is to water down the foundations of Division III in an
effort to retain a certain level of membership, and I think any effort in that
direction (including subdivision) would completely unravel the Division.
To
me, these issues are far more critical to the future of the association than
whether some school opts to align itself with a conference
more because of geographical compatibility than philosophical
compatibility. I don’t think the NCAA should be in the business of
“helping” institutions find their rightful place in terms of
conference affiliation. Nor do I
think an “open shopping” period without loss of AQ eligibility
would be in the best interests of the membership. It seems to me there could be some
unintended consequences to this initiative,
including
increased costs (how many schools are actually going to find more compatible
conference members close to home?) and massive ill-will from
“raiding” conferences for prospective members.
My
sense about these and many other issues currently under discussion is that,
absent a compelling reason to the contrary, the long-standing Division III
principle of institutional autonomy should prevail. However, institutional autonomy only
works if there is a common understanding among member schools about what Division
III is and what it is not. Until
the membership takes a stand in terms of defining or reasserting its mission,
there will continue to be debate about all the other issues on the edges. I’m not inclined to move toward
the “hard line”
traditionalists who want to limit competition, etc., to a ridiculous degree,
but I’m even less inclined to follow some of the newer member schools who
want to make Division III a version of “NAIA Lite.” My
fear is that the NCAA will try to split the difference rather than define
itself and let member schools decide whether they are in or out.
Ted
Kinder, athletics director,
Answer to Question #1: No. I think that these
are indeed the issues that need to be addressed and look forward to seeing how
the membership responds to them.
Answer to Question #2: No. I think that these
are indeed the issues that need to be addressed and look forward to seeing how
the membership responds to them.
Jay Moseley, president,
Question
#1 -- Are there specific issues related to the proposed legislation, best practices and items for further
discussion that you wish to address?
NONE
Question
#2 -- Is there ONE issue related to the Future of Division III that does not
appear in either grouping that the governance structure should address? If so, please identify that issue.
WHAT ARE
THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS THAT DISTINGUISH DIVISION III FROM DIVISION I AND
II? IS DIVISION III BECOMING MORE
LIKE DIVISION I AND II WITH THE TIME COMMITMENTS IN THE NON-TRADITIONAL SEASON
AND THE COMPETITION FOR DIVISION III RECRUITS? SHOULD THERE BE SOME LIMITS AND
REGULATIONS PLACED ON DIVISION III RECRUITING BY COACHES AND INSTITUTIONS?
Tina Hill, athletics director,
Legislative
revision to cap each team sport bracket at 64, once the sports sponsorship
access ratio exceeds 1:6.5, except football, which will remain at 32.
[Management of Growth & Championships]
"I approve of this measure as being fiscally prudent."
Legislation
to amend the Division III philosophy statement to indicate that admissions
policies for student-athletes should be consistent with those applicable to the
general student body. [Academic Success of Student-Athlete] "I don't feel that the NCAA should
legislate admission policies of any kind for member institutions."
Karl
Steffen, coach,
Question
#1: A general observation: the NCAA needs to be careful about
intruding further and further into "institutional autonomy". The new financial aid audit is now
required and the proposed Conference self study and academic minimum standards
are possible future intrusions.
This does not mean that I am necessarily against all of these proposals
but it does appear to be a great deal to handle at one time. I feel offended that the NCAA or our
Conference feels the need to police what I think is done well on most college
campuses. Following normal college
hiring procedures, following basic admissions policy, requiring academic
success, for our athletes, etc. should be handled on our campuses and not
legislated from the outside. We should not be creating rules just to catch the
few who may not believe in the proper way to operate an athletic program.
Question
#2: The DIII mission statement
currently addresses and supports regional competition despite several straw
votes that I have participated in over the last few years. National championships are what our
members want to see and thus the mission statement should reflect this
desire. I suggest legislation to
amend the mission statement and delete reference to regional competition and
once again allow each institution to decide their geographical level of
competition.
Tim Shea,
director of athletics,