FUTURE OF DIVISION III - PHASE II CONFERENCE VISITS
|
NAME: |
Rosalie
Resch |
|
CONFERENCE: |
NESCAC |
|
DATE: |
|
|
ATTENDEES (CEO, AD, SWA, FAR, SAAC): |
|
AD
and SWA |
|
FUTURE
OF DIVISION III – PHASE II AND MEMBERSHIP-RELATED LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSAL COMMENTS: |
|
|
a.
Championships
|
Support
for size of field
definition. Support
at 6-0-4 for the Strength of Season Index. Members would like to hear discussion
on the floor and more information from the championships committee. Very
strong opposition (did not even discuss) the change in out of region
proposal. |
|
b.
Membership
(NCAC) |
Strong
opposition to increasing membership requirements. The sentiment is that the expanded
championship field makes access issues less critical and that increased
sports sponsorship would be difficult for smaller institutions and would
interfere with institutional autonomy.
Support
for the President’s proposal for realignment but may propose separating
the proposal. Strategy discussion
about this was scheduled to occur after the meeting. Opposed the |
|
c.
Eligibility
|
Support
for the |
|
d.
Playing and Practice Seasons
|
Strong
opposition to any retrenchment of the reform package. |
|
e.
Other Key Governance
|
Support
for all-seen as non-controverial. |
|
f.
Other General Proposals
|
The members had very strong opposition to
the elimination of competition against h.s and prep teams by subvarsity
teams. JV budgets are limited and
not all colleges sponsor JV programs so the schools in
NESCAC rely on prep school competition for almost 50% of the scheduling. They do not see this as a recruiting
advantage noting that the head varsity coach is often not in attendance at
these games. The value of JV
programs would be substantially diminished if this proposal is approved. Strong opposition to the private lesson
proposal even if amended to limit to golf and tennis. |
|
GENERAL COMMENTS: It was a very good meeting. We spent close to an hour on the
briefing book with a good conversation about the financial aid reporting
process and the new conference grant program. They expressed concerns about the need
for increased flexibility between tiers because they have developed programs
in the past that have used greater funding. The signature page continues to be a
contentious item. We devoted close to two hours to discussion
of the legislative package and there is unanimity in this conference about
the reform agenda that was adopted in 2004. |
|
NAME: |
Jone Dowd |
|
CONFERENCE: |
Atlantic
Women’s Collegiate Conference |
|
DATE: |
|
|
ATTENDEES (CEO, AD, SWA, FAR, SAAC): |
|
|
AD, Commissioner |
|
|
FUTURE OF
DIVISION III – PHASE II AND MEMBERSHIP-RELATED LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSAL COMMENTS: |
|
|
a. Championships
|
They were satisfied
with 64 There was no opposition/discussion/concern of these proposals |
|
b. Membership
(NCAC) |
Sport sponsorship
was a concern to small colleges such as these. They felt that the
increase in minimum contest requirements were in conflict with the philosophy
amendment. Member cap was
keeping smaller one sex institutions out. Sport sponsorship
increase would be a hardship on smaller colleges |
|
c. Eligibility
|
Were not in favor
of grad. Student participation, redshirting and
extending non-trad. Season. Agreed with season of comp. |
|
d. Playing and Practice Seasons
|
|
|
e. Other Key Governance
|
Were in agreement
with all of these proposals. |
|
f. Other General Proposals
|
Agreed with all of
these proposals. None of the institutions had football. |
|
GENERAL COMMENTS: |
|
NAME: |
Joyce Wong |
|
CONFERENCE: |
Great Northeast Athletic Conference |
|
DATE: |
|
|
ATTENDEES (CEO, AD, SWA, FAR, SAAC): |
|
AD, Commissioner , SWA and SAAC Advisors |
|
FUTURE OF
DIVISION III – PHASE II AND MEMBERSHIP-RELATED LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSAL COMMENTS: |
|
|
a. Championships
|
They were satisfied
with 64 There was no opposition/discussion/concern of these proposals |
|
b. Membership
(NCAC) |
Sport sponsorship
was a concern to small colleges . Number of contests:
Scheduled or 70% of number actually played ? Member cap would keep some smaller schools with
disapportioned ratios out. Sport sponsorship
increase would be a hardship on smaller colleges . Sport sponsorship a
problem if you have a ratio of male vs females higher than 65-35 either way. |
|
c. Eligibility
|
Were not in favor
of grad. Student participation, redshirting and
extending non-trad. Season. Agreed with season of comp. |
|
d. Playing and Practice Seasons
|
Thought this would be
beneficial to the spring sports |
|
e. Other Key Governance
|
Were in agreement
with all of these proposals. |
|
f. Other General Proposals
|
|
|
GENERAL COMMENTS: Liked the Conference grant program proposals. Commissioner would like a copy of the Conference Self-Study. Did not feel that there should be legislation proposed about
membership and sport sponsorship without first getting feedback from
members. Felt that when they answered the survey, it was
informational rather than used to develop legislation. |
|
NAME: |
Kay Whitley |
|
CONFERENCE: |
American Southwest Conference |
|
DATE: |
|
|
ATTENDEES (CEO, AD, SWA, FAR, SAAC): |
|
AD, Commissioner , FAR |
|
FUTURE OF
DIVISION III – PHASE II AND MEMBERSHIP-RELATED LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSAL COMMENTS: |
|
|
a. Championships
|
Support for the 64
field size Mixed support for
E8 Some support for the elimination of out of region play |
|
b. Membership
(NCAC) |
Did not show much
support for CSSG and limited realignment No support for
increasing sports sponsorship. Not much discussion
on changing contest requirements |
|
c. Eligibility
|
Strong support of
the redshirting legislation - comments dealt with most students taking 5
years to graduate No support for
seasons of competition at any Division |
|
d. Playing and Practice Seasons
|
Strong support for this |
|
e. Other Key Governance
|
Seem to agree with
most of these proposals |
|
f. Other General Proposals
|
|
|
GENERAL COMMENTS: The conference was not sure
about the new grant proposals, seem to like how it
has been done. On the question of an AQ grace period, this conference
could have possibly spilt into 3 different conferences had this legislation
been in place 2 years ago ( one football conference
and two conferences for all the other sports). |
FUTURE OF DIVISION III - PHASE II CONFERENCE VISITS
|
NAME: |
Tim
Gleason |
|
CONFERENCE: |
|
|
DATE: |
|
|
ATTENDEES (CEO, AD, SWA, FAR, SAAC): |
|
|
|
FUTURE
OF DIVISION III – PHASE II AND MEMBERSHIP-RELATED LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSAL COMMENTS: |
|
|
a.
Championships
|
|
|
b.
Membership
(NCAC) |
They
were very concerned with membership growth and expressed particular liking to
the 6+6 sponsorship plan as opposed to the NCAC sliding scale plan. |
|
c.
Eligibility
|
They
expressed strong desire to not erode the three reforms of two years ago. |
|
d. Playing and Practice Seasons
|
|
|
e.
Other Key Governance
|
|
|
f.
Other General Proposals
|
|
|
GENERAL COMMENTS: Best Practices – Not a great deal of
energy with this topic and there did not seem to be widespread participation. Grant Program – There was energy for
this discussion and while I received no negative feedback, there was barely
any feedback at all, perhaps because of the “how are we going to plan
this” thinking. They
started talking about possible mechanisms to implement this program, which
was precisely one of the missions of my trip. I imagine this “enthusiasm
tempered by apprehension” will be somewhat universal until local
mechanisms are in place to plan and implement the program. They clearly saw the long-term vision
and benefits of this program. 2006 Convention Legislation – Spent
most of our time reviewing proposals.
They were very appreciative of the Council attending their meeting and
answering questions. They were
not yet in the position to take straw votes but I could sense that for the
most part the conference will vote according to MC and PC endorsements, or
lack thereof. |
FUTURE OF DIVISION III - PHASE II CONFERENCE VISITS
|
NAME: |
Dick
Strockbine |
|
CONFERENCE: |
Independents |
|
DATE: |
|
|
ATTENDEES (CEO, AD, SWA, FAR, SAAC): |
|
13
athletics directors, 1 SAAC member, 2 senior woman administrators and 1
administrator for the Independents. |
|
FUTURE
OF DIVISION III – PHASE II AND MEMBERSHIP-RELATED LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSAL COMMENTS: |
|
|
a.
Championships
|
Prop
11 - No problems Prop
16 - Favor Prop
14 - Favor Prop
15 - Prop
10 - Strongly favor |
|
b.
Membership
(NCAC) |
Prop
13 - Opposed. Independents feel
the sooner conferences are permitted to realign the better Prop
12 - Against. Independents feel increases in Division III membership is in
their favor and also increases opportunities to form conferences Prop
8 - Unanimous Against, don’t want to change |