PDA

View Full Version : Division III Colleges Debate Role of Sports



XCTiger
12-14-2009, 05:04 PM
I ran across this ABC news story today and thought I'd post it here. It isn't hockey centric, but covers overall DIII Sports and academics.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=9333714
The short and sweet is that the NCAA is concerned and started a pilot project to track class rankings and grades at 88 selected schools across the country. While the preception is that DIII in general has its act together, there are issues that deserve further investigation.

The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation is running the studay and has a website with more details. http://www.collegesportsproject.org/

Hopefully this won't start an academics "*issing match". Hopefully mature heads will prevail and we'll see some interesting discussion.

joeyc3402
12-14-2009, 05:58 PM
What ticks me off about the schools that go on and on about Division III academics being far more in line with what a student-athlete should be is that the NCAA wouldn't have a single ***** dime for them if not for the money that major sports like basketball and football make to be able to support championships for the "lesser" sports (like Division III gymnastics).

Division III as we know it today can exist because of the marketability, profitability, and financial structure of the Division I sports.

norm1909
12-15-2009, 01:34 PM
...Division III as we know it today can exist because of the marketability, profitability, and financial structure of the Division I sports.

While I certainly agree the NCAA bureaucracy could not exist as it does today, without Division I sports, I do believe Division III sports could not only exist without the NCAA, but in many cases could do so better than they do now. What would be potentially lacking, though I believe something would exist, is the "Name Brand" recognition that the NCAA has established (for better or for worse).

Division III sports do not exist for "profitability" in the terms of revenue generated by the athletic departments themselves, but rather for their impact on the marketability (and consequently the "profitability"/"sustainability" of the institution) of the school itself - i.e. the attractiveness to potential students that comes from having an athletic department.

NUProf
12-15-2009, 02:23 PM
While I certainly agree the NCAA bureaucracy could not exist as it does today, without Division I sports, I do believe Division III sports could not only exist without the NCAA, but in many cases could do so better than they do now. What would be potentially lacking, though I believe something would exist, is the "Name Brand" recognition that the NCAA has established (for better or for worse).

Division III sports do not exist for "profitability" in the terms of revenue generated by the athletic departments themselves, but rather for their impact on the marketability (and consequently the "profitability"/"sustainability" of the institution) of the school itself - i.e. the attractiveness to potential students that comes from having an athletic department.

I think that there is a certain credibility that the general public puts on the NCAA "brand" that doesn't make a lot of sense to anyone who looks closely at how it operates. In the 80s, women's sports were run under the banner of the AAIW, but the NCAA decided to get into the business of sanctioning women's sports and within a couple of years the AAIW was dead and gone. For the last several years the NCAA has been growing DIII sports at the expense of the NAIA, which used to be a vibrant competitor, but now is a shell of its former self. Why did the NCAA grow and the AAIW disappear, and the NAIA shrink - it's largely because the garden variety sports fan associates college athletics with the NCAA, and other organizations are (in their view) some kind of irrelevant substitute for it.

norm1909
12-15-2009, 03:26 PM
I think that there is a certain credibility that the general public puts on the NCAA "brand" that doesn't make a lot of sense to anyone who looks closely at how it operates. In the 80s, women's sports were run under the banner of the AAIW, but the NCAA decided to get into the business of sanctioning women's sports and within a couple of years the AAIW was dead and gone. For the last several years the NCAA has been growing DIII sports at the expense of the NAIA, which used to be a vibrant competitor, but now is a shell of its former self. Why did the NCAA grow and the AAIW disappear, and the NAIA shrink - it's largely because the garden variety sports fan associates college athletics with the NCAA, and other organizations are (in their view) some kind of irrelevant substitute for it.

I fully agree, the ONLY way I could see sports currently under the NCAA banner succeed, would be if the NCAA choose to exit Division III sports, THEN, I believe another entity (such as the NAIA) could exist and probably do a better job than the NCAA. For now, the NCAA Brand, is THEE brand, behold the power of "Top of Mind Awareness".

jerrynu26
12-15-2009, 03:42 PM
I think that there is a certain credibility that the general public puts on the NCAA "brand" that doesn't make a lot of sense to anyone who looks closely at how it operates. In the 80s, women's sports were run under the banner of the AAIW, but the NCAA decided to get into the business of sanctioning women's sports and within a couple of years the AAIW was dead and gone. For the last several years the NCAA has been growing DIII sports at the expense of the NAIA, which used to be a vibrant competitor, but now is a shell of its former self. Why did the NCAA grow and the AAIW disappear, and the NAIA shrink - it's largely because the garden variety sports fan associates college athletics with the NCAA, and other organizations are (in their view) some kind of irrelevant substitute for it.
Dislaimer:The following should be considered my own opinion for entertainment purposes. .

The NCAA wants to be the 600 pound gorilla when it comes to collegiate athletics, and beat any competitors into submission however it can. In the case of the NIT, they simply bought it out. For NAIA, they are circumventing it till it dies. They want nothing less than a monopoly on it all (which is what will ultimately cause their comeuppance).

As powerful as they have become, they do not yet rule all. There was a reason that enforcement of the mascot rules was so uneven. North Dakota was steamrolled as their signature sport was "only" hockey. Other schools were driven to the ground because they were small DIV. I schools.
Some schools were seemingly scolded, and then left alone. Florida State, as an example, was left alone. But Florida State and the other big football schools have a power over the NCAA in that they literally could take their ball and go away, leaving the NCAA with some huge holes to fill. Funny thing about htose big football schools, a lot of them are big basketball schools too. A double blow to the NCAA....

Fair enough, the end of the rant..........

Jim
12-17-2009, 04:11 PM
Isn't this whole discussion an outgrowth of the whole "D-4" discussion of a few years ago? At that time one of the arguments was that some schools were effectively playing d-3 at a minimal level to compete for a national championship. I think there was also a move to reduce the number of sports needed among other things, so a school could offer for example, just hockey. A number of the more traditional D-3 schools currently do offer and want to offer 30+ sports effectively opening athletics almost to anyone who wants to play.