NCAA considers expanding Division III athletics

Emma Carmichael Assistant Sports Editor

The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) is facing growing problems in Division III, now its largest division with 420 active members. The division is currently split between elite, privately funded institutions such as Vassar, and larger, publicly funded schools that place greater emphasis on athletic programs. Division III schools are generally marked by the lack of athletic scholarships, a characteristic seen across a wealth of universities and colleges where enrollments range from 400 to 40,000 students.

Last month at the Division III National Convention, the Executive Committee appointed two committees that will each develop models for a designated split between Division III schools, possibly resulting in the establishment of a Division IV or Division III-A category. This desire for change has risen over basic differences between the traditional, private colleges and the larger, publicly funded institutions that currently make up the division: How much money are schools willing to spend on athletics? Do certain schools put too much effort into recruiting athletes? And, perhaps the most pressing question, what should the role of athletics be at elite colleges such as Vassar?

It is no secret that athletics are becoming increasingly significant in the convoluted college admission process. While Division II athletic coaches are unable to offer scholarships to prospective athletes, they sometimes spend a significant amount of time recruiting players for their respective teams, and athletes that commit to schools early greatly assist retention rates.

Although the committees appointed by the NCAA’s Executive Committee will not release their proposals for a fourth division or subdivision until next year’s convention in January 2008, there is a general idea of what their suggestions will entail. One division would likely require more varsity teams (up to 18) while restricting recruitment practices, out-of-season practices, and the length of the playing seasons. The other would permit schools only six to 10 teams but would be more lenient with recruitment and scheduling guidelines. This model would leave room for colleges to focus on high-profile (and high-cost) sports, such as football.

The impact of such a change would greatly affect upper-tier academic schools that also compete on a national athletic level. Middlebury College for example, has won 27 National Championships since the 1995 season and is ranked the fifth “Best Liberal Arts College” by U.S. News & World Report. Because Middlebury would likely fall into the lower division if such a change were put into effect, coaches and admission officers alike are worried about how this would influence their ability to attract top athletes and students. “Division four” has a much different ring to it than “Division three,” whether or not it means less-competitive athletic teams.

Associate Director of Athletics at Vassar Kim Culligan said that adding a Division IV “doesn’t mean [a school] is necessarily worse” and that she “wouldn’t see it affecting admission rates” at Vassar.

“If anything,” continued Culligan, “I think a Division IV would be more towards what Division III is supposed to be right now. I think you’d see a stricter adherence to what the legislation really was intended to be for Division III.”

On the other hand, schools that choose to focus primarily on athletics would fall in the ever-important academic rankings, and their admissions would likely suffer as a result. It would force colleges and universities to make a difficult decision: Should they de-emphasize athletics or academics? For whichever division they should choose to join, sacrifices would have to be made.

Next year the committees will present their proposals at the national convention, and the change will be voted on in 2009. At this point there is no telling what the outcome will be. In the end, the decision will be made by the Division III college and university presidents.

Culligan said that the proposal has a long way to go before it will make a significant change. “If there are enough people interested and enough support to get it on the table and slated for adoption, then it could be passed,” said Culligan. “But I think we’ll see a lot more talk and investigation, and people trying to figure out what’s the right thing to do.”

The NCAA homepage says that Division III athletics “encourages participation by maximizing the number and variety of athletics opportunities available to student-athletes, placing primary emphasis on regional in-season and conference competition,” and that its “athletics departments place special importance on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than on the spectators…The student-athlete’s experience is of paramount concern.”

The changes currently proposed by the NCAA seem to ignore the essential importance and meaning of Division III collegiate athletics. There is no stardom on the Division III athletic fields, no sold-out arenas or Sports Illustrated features, no cross-country match-ups or nationally-televised contests. Division III athletes participate in varsity sports because they love to play and to compete. By placing further constraints on an already highly restricted division, the NCAA will be challenging the self-stated “variety of athletics opportunities available to student-athletes” and the overall spirit of Division III athletics.

“Division III is for the student-athlete’s experience; it’s not for the spectators,” said Culligan. “You’ve got to find that happy medium of what is best.”