Thanks for the input teamvsn.

Perhaps my viewpoint was skewed in that I know of many schools in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Montana that were NAIA and have moved to NCAA D2. Based on what you've said, it really didn't make sense for them to do that ... I guess? But they did it anyway.

I'm going to nitpick just for the fun of it :)

(07-14-2017 04:55 PM)johnintx Wrote:  Pros for DII: Prestige of NCAA brand, association with peer institutions and rivals if they are also in DII.

Pros for NAIA: Lower budgets, different eligiblity rules, smaller pool of schools competing in various sports (increasing the ability to win national championships).

"association with peer institutions and rivals if they are also in DII" This is also true of the NAIA, particularly in the midwest where you have some ancient rivalries (Heart of America Athletic Conference or Great Plains Athletic Conference) that are also looking to expand. You could argue the Mid-South Conference (Kentucky), Sooner (Oklahoma/Texas), Frontier Conference (Montana), Cascade (pacific Northwest), Crossroads (Indiana), Chicagoland, Golden State (So. Cal.) as well. So that argument, broadly speaking, is a wash. And so we are left with:

Pros for DII: Prestige of NCAA brand

(07-14-2017 05:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Thanks for the input teamvsn.

Perhaps my viewpoint was skewed in that I know of many schools in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Montana that were NAIA and have moved to NCAA D2. Based on what you've said, it really didn't make sense for them to do that ... I guess? But they did it anyway.

The Minnesota ones I am not familiar with. I know of the Dakota ones that moved in the last 10 years. The Montana ones must have been quite a while ago as well as the Frontier conference has been pretty stable.

But I ask you: how large are they, how big are their endowments, and are they competitive? If they're small, poor and uncompetitive, perhaps they aren't happy with their choice. Just because they went doesn't mean it was a good move. Lots of promises were made in the last 10 years by enthused ADs that didn't come true.

Of the ones in the Dakotas that I know of, Sioux Falls would be the most successful. They are a football school. From what I've heard, the rest of their sports aren't doing well at all. If football is all they care about, they are probably happy. But most small schools don't have single sport tunnel vision.

(07-14-2017 06:08 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  But most small schools don't have single sport tunnel vision.

And I would agree that football is where D2 has the biggest advantage over the NAIA, given the scholarship difference. Overall it's pretty even.

(07-14-2017 05:57 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  I'm going to nitpick just for the fun of it :)

(07-14-2017 04:55 PM)johnintx Wrote:  Pros for DII: Prestige of NCAA brand, association with peer institutions and rivals if they are also in DII.

Pros for NAIA: Lower budgets, different eligiblity rules, smaller pool of schools competing in various sports (increasing the ability to win national championships).

"association with peer institutions and rivals if they are also in DII" This is also true of the NAIA, particularly in the midwest where you have some ancient rivalries (Heart of America Athletic Conference or Great Plains Athletic Conference) that are also looking to expand. You could argue the Mid-South Conference (Kentucky), Sooner (Oklahoma/Texas), Frontier Conference (Montana), Cascade (pacific Northwest), Crossroads (Indiana), Chicagoland, Golden State (So. Cal.) as well. So that argument, broadly speaking, is a wash. And so we are left with:

Pros for DII: Prestige of NCAA brand

Langston and Texas College were members of D1 SWAC conference. Also Wiley College, Huston Tillotson and Paul Quinn. Only Prairie View the only founded member of the SWAC left. Only Wiley, Texas College and Langston played against most of the SWAC members. I think Langston might have been thinking of trying to rejoin the SWAC down the road when they were thinking of going to D2 a few years back.

Spring Hill's response:

http://shcbadgers.com/news/2017/7/14/gen...vance.aspx


About their accreditation issues from last year:


http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/...n_pro.html


I don't see their accreditation being resolved soon enough to affect the appeals process. But if everything else is OK, they might maintain their system and re-apply when their finances are straightened out. Actually, it's kind of surprising they applied in the first place with financial issues looming.

(07-14-2017 06:08 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 05:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Thanks for the input teamvsn.

Perhaps my viewpoint was skewed in that I know of many schools in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Montana that were NAIA and have moved to NCAA D2. Based on what you've said, it really didn't make sense for them to do that ... I guess? But they did it anyway.

The Minnesota ones I am not familiar with. I know of the Dakota ones that moved in the last 10 years. The Montana ones must have been quite a while ago as well as the Frontier conference has been pretty stable.

But I ask you: how large are they, how big are their endowments, and are they competitive? If they're small, poor and uncompetitive, perhaps they aren't happy with their choice. Just because they went doesn't mean it was a good move. Lots of promises were made in the last 10 years by enthused ADs that didn't come true.

Of the ones in the Dakotas that I know of, Sioux Falls would be the most successful. They are a football school. From what I've heard, the rest of their sports aren't doing well at all. If football is all they care about, they are probably happy. But most small schools don't have single sport tunnel vision.

There have been three great waves of schools that have moved from the NAIA to the NCAA since the mid-80's. The MIAC schools from 1982-85, the NSC schools from 91-95 and the UMAC schools from 2004-06.

(07-14-2017 05:57 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  I'm going to nitpick just for the fun of it :)

(07-14-2017 04:55 PM)johnintx Wrote:  Pros for DII: Prestige of NCAA brand, association with peer institutions and rivals if they are also in DII.

Pros for NAIA: Lower budgets, different eligiblity rules, smaller pool of schools competing in various sports (increasing the ability to win national championships).

"association with peer institutions and rivals if they are also in DII" This is also true of the NAIA, particularly in the midwest where you have some ancient rivalries (Heart of America Athletic Conference or Great Plains Athletic Conference) that are also looking to expand. You could argue the Mid-South Conference (Kentucky), Sooner (Oklahoma/Texas), Frontier Conference (Montana), Cascade (pacific Northwest), Crossroads (Indiana), Chicagoland, Golden State (So. Cal.) as well. So that argument, broadly speaking, is a wash. And so we are left with:

Pros for DII: Prestige of NCAA brand

That's why I added the disclaimer "if they are also in DII". My alma mater just completed the transition to DII from NAIA. We followed many of our rivals to DII.

(07-14-2017 06:43 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 06:08 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 05:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Thanks for the input teamvsn.

Perhaps my viewpoint was skewed in that I know of many schools in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Montana that were NAIA and have moved to NCAA D2. Based on what you've said, it really didn't make sense for them to do that ... I guess? But they did it anyway.

The Minnesota ones I am not familiar with. I know of the Dakota ones that moved in the last 10 years. The Montana ones must have been quite a while ago as well as the Frontier conference has been pretty stable.

But I ask you: how large are they, how big are their endowments, and are they competitive? If they're small, poor and uncompetitive, perhaps they aren't happy with their choice. Just because they went doesn't mean it was a good move. Lots of promises were made in the last 10 years by enthused ADs that didn't come true.

Of the ones in the Dakotas that I know of, Sioux Falls would be the most successful. They are a football school. From what I've heard, the rest of their sports aren't doing well at all. If football is all they care about, they are probably happy. But most small schools don't have single sport tunnel vision.

There have been three great waves of schools that have moved from the NAIA to the NCAA since the mid-80's. The MIAC schools from 1982-85, the NSC schools from 91-95 and the UMAC schools from 2004-06.

Right. Different era. There were different reasons back then, often relating to Title IX. Those reasons have passed, and both D2 and the NAIA are different organizations now. The NAIA has much broader sport sponsorship and has focused itself on supporting flexible, budget friendly athletic programs.

Ok, what are the pros & cons of DIII vs DII & NAIA? I don't hear about DIII too much on this board, so I thought I'd ask.

Never heard of a lot of these schools. I would go d3 over d2 or naia. In d3 there are no scholarships to worry about and the academic standing of schools is better. Guess it depends on conference affiliations

(07-14-2017 06:09 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 06:08 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  But most small schools don't have single sport tunnel vision.

And I would agree that football is where D2 has the biggest advantage over the NAIA, given the scholarship difference. Overall it's pretty even.

I actually would give the NAIA a decent advantage over D2.

Even though the biggest difference is the football limits between the NAIA and D2, and though both organizations allow an athlete to not count to the limits if they are getting outside institution help (Federal/State Grants), the NAIA allows an athlete to not be counted to the limit if that athlete is an excellent academic student.
For example, NAIA D1 basketball limit is 11 and NCAA D2 is 10. However, a NAIA school could be allowed to give athletic aid to 15 players if 4 of them meet the academic exemption.
The exemption goes for all sports. Even without the academic exemption, the NAIA still has some significant limits in quite a few sports.
Here is the by from the NAIA manual about the academic exemption.

"F. Academic Exemption
1. Academically gifted students will be exempt from the aid counted by use of the following criteria:
a. Aid to continuing students with a 3.60 cumulative GPA or who are in the top 10% of the class will not count against the limits.
b. Only one-half of the aid to continuing students with a 3.30 - 3.59 cumulative GPA or who are in the upper 11% - 25% of the
class will count against the limits.
c. Aid to entering freshmen will be exempt upon achievement of the following:
1) Minimum SAT/ACT score: 1130 SAT/23 ACT = half exemption, 1270 SAT/27 ACT = full exemption;
2) Cumulative high school GPA: 3.50 - 3.74 = half exemption, 3.75 - 4.0 = full exemption; or
3) High school class rank: top 11% - 25% = half exemption, top 10% = full exemption"

However, although the NAIA has made progress in branding and marketing, the NCAA D2 still holds the 'prestige' value just because of the NCAA D1 branding.

But the bigger advantage for a non-football school in the NAIA is the need to only sponsor 6 sports (3 men's/3 women's) vs 10 for NCAA D2 (5/5 or 4/6).

(07-15-2017 02:27 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Ok, what are the pros & cons of DIII vs DII & NAIA? I don't hear about DIII too much on this board, so I thought I'd ask.

D3: No athletics scholarships and the purest student-athlete.

D2/NAIA: Athletics scholarships.


D2/NAIA are similar in many ways and that is why there is a bit of discussion between the two.

(07-15-2017 08:37 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Never heard of a lot of these schools. I would go d3 over d2 or naia. In d3 there are no scholarships to worry about and the academic standing of schools is better. Guess it depends on conference affiliations

It does in many ways, a great example of this is the D3 Northwest Conference. It is made up on small private schools in Oregon and Washington. Half of the membership has been together since 1926. The conference was part of the NAIA until 1996 when the conference moved to NCAA D3.

(07-15-2017 09:04 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 06:09 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 06:08 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  But most small schools don't have single sport tunnel vision.

And I would agree that football is where D2 has the biggest advantage over the NAIA, given the scholarship difference. Overall it's pretty even.

I actually would give the NAIA a decent advantage over D2.


However, although the NAIA has made progress in branding and marketing, the NCAA D2 still holds the 'prestige' value just because of the NCAA D1 branding.

But the bigger advantage for a non-football school in the NAIA is the need to only sponsor 6 sports (3 men's/3 women's) vs 10 for NCAA D2 (5/5 or 4/6).

This. Athletic department size and scope, and the existence of football matter. If a school can only afford to emphasize one or two sports and offer just a few others, the NAIA is a great fit, especially if there are other nearby NAIA schools. In addition, DII has a cap of 36 scholarships in football (some conferences have a smaller limit), while NAIA has a cap of 24 football scholarships (likewise, some conferences and schools do not offer the maximum).

My alma mater, Oklahoma Baptist University, was just approved for full membership in DII after a three year transition period. OBU offers 19 sports in DII (9 men's, 10 women's), and spends in the neighborhood of $8 million per year (per EADA report) on athletics. Before the transition, OBU won three consecutive Learfield Directors Cups in the NAIA. Our school was very successful in the NAIA. In addition, OBU reinstated football in 2013 after a 73 year hiatus. The Bison played 2 years at the NAIA level before assuming a DII schedule in the Great American Conference. We are currently struggling in football and men's basketball, but are doing ok in the other sports. We are back with some old rivals. With the current size and scope of our athletic program, I think DII will be a good fit. That's just one school, though.

I say that with mixed feelings, because I miss the old NAIA from the 70's, 80's, and 90's. Those were good times with tough competition and great rivalries. I really do wish the NAIA well. I think its worst days are behind it.

(07-15-2017 09:25 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-15-2017 08:37 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Never heard of a lot of these schools. I would go d3 over d2 or naia. In d3 there are no scholarships to worry about and the academic standing of schools is better. Guess it depends on conference affiliations

It does in many ways, a great example of this is the D3 Northwest Conference. It is made up on small private schools in Oregon and Washington. Half of the membership has been together since 1926. The conference was part of the NAIA until 1996 when the conference moved to NCAA D3.

NAIA was not around until 1937. As it was, the D3 conference had a different name before 1926. The founding members of that conference were Idaho, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State and some members of you are in that conference. Other members also included Montana and College of Idaho. At the time of this conference? Idaho, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State and Montana had a duel membership.

(07-14-2017 06:57 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  Right. Different era. There were different reasons back then, often relating to Title IX. Those reasons have passed, and both D2 and the NAIA are different organizations now. The NAIA has much broader sport sponsorship and has focused itself on supporting flexible, budget friendly athletic programs.

Off the top of my head, I was thinking of Moorhead (MN) State. I'm pretty sure they were good in football in the NAIA, but moved to DII and haven't really ever done much. They once played NDSU (across the river in Fargo ND) when they were still DII, and lost the game like 80-0 (no joke).

(07-15-2017 10:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-15-2017 09:25 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-15-2017 08:37 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Never heard of a lot of these schools. I would go d3 over d2 or naia. In d3 there are no scholarships to worry about and the academic standing of schools is better. Guess it depends on conference affiliations

It does in many ways, a great example of this is the D3 Northwest Conference. It is made up on small private schools in Oregon and Washington. Half of the membership has been together since 1926. The conference was part of the NAIA until 1996 when the conference moved to NCAA D3.

NAIA was not around until 1937. As it was, the D3 conference had a different name before 1926. The founding members of that conference were Idaho, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State and some members of you are in that conference. Other members also included Montana and College of Idaho. At the time of this conference? Idaho, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State and Montana had a duel membership.

You are wrong about this one David St. Founding members are Willamette U, Pacific U, Whitman, Puget Sound and Linfield.

http://nwcsports.com/information/history/index

here is the link to their history.

They didn't play at a high level and were in the NAIA until 1996 when the conference move to D3.

(07-15-2017 08:37 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Never heard of a lot of these schools. I would go d3 over d2 or naia. In d3 there are no scholarships to worry about and the academic standing of schools is better. Guess it depends on conference affiliations

In theory. In practice, there's a whole lot of pressure to offer scholarships in order to be competitive, and the practice is widespread.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...ast-decade

There was also a report on ncaa.org a few years ago that said that over 50% of D3 schools had been reported - "accused" - of violating the principal. Surely not all 50% were actually guilty, but that number is still pretty big.

The reality is that D3 DOES allow scholarships to athletes, they just can't be packaged as "athletic" scholarships. And schools are definitely allowed to consider athletic ability in admittance rules. Those two concepts are glued together with what is commonly called a "leadership" scholarship. There is no rule against this. The relevant rule that comes into play is that there cannot be more scholarships awarded to athletes than are awarded to the student population in general at that school.

So for example, if there were a very wealthy school that was able to offer all students full scholarships if they met certain academic requirements (say, a certain ACT score), and the general student population was granted 90% on this basis, the school could recruit less academically qualified athletes and give them "leadership" scholarships instead. So for a 15 member basketball team, 13 of them could be on full scholarship. That's an extreme example but I've been told this scenario actually exists at a few schools (conceding that these athletes still have to smart enough to pass their classes in a school where 90% of the population is intellectually gifted). More realistically, by the rules, each sport is going to have a few "leadership" scholarship players on the team, and they are probably athletes that would otherwise get a genuine athletic scholarship at an NAIA or NCAA D2 school. I saw a guy play for D3 Mississippi College a few years ago that should have been playing NCAA D1 ball.

So it comes down to a mathematical analysis that a school gambles will not be performed by someone who cares.

Basically, D3 being "non-scholarship" is a myth. It's an ideal, and one that the presidents love to promote, but it's not real.

(07-15-2017 12:19 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-15-2017 10:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-15-2017 09:25 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-15-2017 08:37 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Never heard of a lot of these schools. I would go d3 over d2 or naia. In d3 there are no scholarships to worry about and the academic standing of schools is better. Guess it depends on conference affiliations

It does in many ways, a great example of this is the D3 Northwest Conference. It is made up on small private schools in Oregon and Washington. Half of the membership has been together since 1926. The conference was part of the NAIA until 1996 when the conference moved to NCAA D3.

NAIA was not around until 1937. As it was, the D3 conference had a different name before 1926. The founding members of that conference were Idaho, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State and some members of you are in that conference. Other members also included Montana and College of Idaho. At the time of this conference? Idaho, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State and Montana had a duel membership.

You are wrong about this one David St. Founding members are Willamette U, Pacific U, Whitman, Puget Sound and Linfield.

http://nwcsports.com/information/history/index

here is the link to their history.

They didn't play at a high level and were in the NAIA until 1996 when the conference move to D3.

The conference before that name was Pacific Northwest Conference.

https://sites.google.com/site/ncaahistor...conference

That is now what we call the D3 conference. The membership change, but the conference had a number of name changes throughout the years.

http://mwal.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_defun...onferences

Quote:Pacific Northwest Conference (1908-1925) - Originally University of Idaho, University of Oregon, Whitman College, Oregon Agricultural College (Oregon State University), University of Washington, Washington State College (University). Later members included University of Montana, Willamette University, Pacific University, Gonzaga University. Pacific Coast Conference member schools maintained dual membership in PCC and PNC. Circa 1925, the six PCC schools left and the remaining active PNC schools formed the Northwest Conference.

It was renamed the Northwest Conference after the 6 PCC schools left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_No...Conference

As it is, before 1926. The conference would have been considered a major conference under the Pacific Northwest Conference. The name of the conference have changed throughout the history to what it is today.