The College Court | Division III athletics face problems

Emma Carmichael Columnist

On Division III campuses such as Vassar’s, student-athletes are exposed to a broad range of athletic opportunities and participate in competitive leagues, all the while keeping high academic standards. Division III is the archetype of balance, where athletes play not for national recognition or sold-out crowds, but simply to play and to learn from their play. While over the years this model has operated well, the balance that defines Division III athletics may be toppled in the coming years, as the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) faces burgeoning membership and financial concerns.

The NCAA reports that over the past 15 years, more than 100 schools have joined Division III. About two-thirds of these schools migrated from the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), an alternative to the NCAA, while the rest were previously NCAA Division II competitors. Furthermore, the NCAA Executive Committee’s Working Group on Membership Issues, which oversees policy proposals on this issue, reports that it expects close to 50 new institutions to join the Division III by the 2016-17 academic year. Adding these institutions would raise the already difficult-to-manage total from 418 to 464 active members in just 10 years.

Clearly, such growth would come at a great cost to the NCAA and to Division III schools. The Executive Committee has estimated that each new member will cost about $38,000 in “programs and services” per year. And, to support 50 new members over the next 10 years, they approximate that “championships, nonchampionship programs and national office support and initiatives” would add up to a whopping $1.9 million.

Rightly so, the NCAA is focusing on the potential loss of players’ experiences. For example, the current championship structure allows for three weeks of postseason competition with 64 teams—across all sports, the maximum access ratio is 1-to-6.5 ,meaning that only one out of every six-and-a-half Division III teams has the opportunity to qualify for a championship. Should Division III continue to grow at its current rate, that access ratio would exceed in baseball, men’s and women’s basketball, men’s and women’s soccer, softball and volleyball. This would prevent an overwhelming number of players from experiencing the playoff atmosphere at the collegiate level.

The Executive Committee has begun to develop guidelines for reorganizing the current Division III structure: One model proposes a subdivision within Division III (using the names Divisions III-A and III-AA); the other would create a Division IV level of NCAA membership. In a letter dated March 9, 2007, John Fry, Chair of the NCAA Division III Presidents’ Council, wrote that Division III is already “philosophically divided” when it comes to the role of collegiate athletics. Some schools, he wrote, wish to “explore less restrictive standards” so that they can focus on athletics as “an enrollment drive and retention tool,” while others wish to uphold the spirit of Division III athletics as “a co-curricular educational offering” that is “fully integrated into the overall educational mission.”

It seems that schools such as Vassar, which actively promote and financially support athletics as an integral part of their students’ experiences, would fall under the “more restrictive” category. In the early working proposals, these conditions would limit season length, increase minimum sports sponsorship (for example, 16 teams or more), require academic reporting and reduce the length of nontraditional playing seasons.

In many ways, placing more restrictions on Division III schools such as Vassar seems contradictory. Here at Vassar, our athletic teams are a presence on campus, but there is a general understanding of and respect for the necessary separation of the classroom and the playing field. Our athletes are students first, but at the same time, the administration and faculty demonstrate an awareness of the students’ athletic commitments.

Outside of the Vassar gates, however, there are almost 450 other Division III schools that range in enrollment from 400 to 40,000, with sports sponsorship varying from 12 to 20 varsity teams. Many of these schools, especially the larger, public universities, would likely be drawn to the “less restrictive” subdivision, which would permit schools six to 10 teams and allow for longer seasons and more lenient recruitment regulations. At larger colleges, it would also make “tiering” an option, in which athletic departments can place more financial and public emphasis on a certain sport, such as football.

Ideally, Division III should continue to function as it was intended to—collectively, and with a philosophical unity across its member schools. But the NCAA is now taking responsibility, realizing that this unity no longer exists and cannot be regulated if the Division continues to grow at its current rate. Although it seems fundamentally wrong to place varying levels of restrictions across schools that have different resources, the Executive Committee will allow for self-selection—that is, institutions will “actively choose to meet the standards of the new grouping in order to join that grouping.” They will also use a delayed effective date, giving all Division III institutions two years to make the changes necessary from their respective divisions.

The subdivision plan, as proposed by the Executive Committee, seems like the most viable option because it would not significantly affect recruiting and enrollment success in schools that would be otherwise designated as “Division IV” institutions. Premier liberal arts colleges with respectable athletic reputations such as Middlebury, Vassar and Williams Colleges, would have fewer difficulties attracting athletes to a Division III-AA school than a Division IV school.

At this point, if nothing is done to prepare for the membership increases and the intensified philosophical split among these members, the balance that characterizes Division III athletics will collapse. The mission of collegiate athletics at the Division III level is to provide “an environment in which a student-athlete’s [athletic] activities are conducted as an integral part of the student-athlete’s educational experience” according to the NCAA Website. This quintessence is one that should not be eliminated from the world of college athletics, when so much of higher-division athletics has already been lost to commercialization. By creating two subdivisions within Division III, we will preserve the student-athlete’s experience as an equal fusion of school and sport.

Emma Carmichael ’10 is an Urban Studies major and a member of the Vassar women’s basketball team. This semester she is editorializing on issues in all divisions of college-level athletics.