(07-15-2017 01:46 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  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.

No, I would not even say that. I would say that presidents like to promote the idea of providing aid on a "need" basis alone, as opposed to a merit basis. Now granted, scholarship/grant resources are limited ... so naturally there is a selection process to divvy up those resources to the best applicants ...

Many people in the Twin Cities are alumni of the MIAC schools here in Minnesota, which are usually pretty competitive nationally in DIII. What I routinely hear is that "everyone on campus gets some kind of scholarship" at those schools. It's simply a way to control the costs of these schools, versus the state's public schools.

So how can you possibly deny providing a half-ride scholarship to a player from a poor neighborhood in St Paul, based on "financial need"? You get the idea ...

What happens if D2 rejects Savannah State's app to rejoin D2? Does that means they stay at D1 in the MEAC?

University of Great Falls put football on the table and possible future for conference in the NAIA for the team.

http://www.montanasports.com/2017/07/17/...rovidence/

Might want to read the title of your link there, for the friggin' correct name of the school ...

(07-18-2017 11:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  University of Great Falls put football on the table and possible future for conference in the NAIA for the team.

http://www.montanasports.com/2017/07/17/...rovidence/

Thanks for this. Some clarifications....

When it says "the Frontier Conference and the NAIA would be a natural fit for a potential football program" it is referring to the association (NAIA) and conference (Frontier) they are already in. They are saying their present situation is a natural fit for adding football. I agree. The Frontier is a football oriented conference and they are one of two teams in it (the other being Lewis-Clark) that doesn't offer it.

The timing of the article was based on questions posed at a news conference in which school colors were announced in conjunction with the college's renaming to be "University of Providence". They are no longer University of Great Falls. The name change was because of a merger with a medical organization and opening of a new health school at the college. I think this means they have some money. :) Let's hope football might be a part of that.

(07-18-2017 11:21 AM)teamvsn Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 11:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  University of Great Falls put football on the table and possible future for conference in the NAIA for the team.

http://www.montanasports.com/2017/07/17/...rovidence/

Thanks for this. Some clarifications....

When it says "the Frontier Conference and the NAIA would be a natural fit for a potential football program" it is referring to the association (NAIA) and conference (Frontier) they are already in. They are saying their present situation is a natural fit for adding football. I agree. The Frontier is a football oriented conference and they are one of two teams in it (the other being Lewis-Clark) that doesn't offer it.

The timing of the article was based on questions posed at a news conference in which school colors were announced in conjunction with the college's renaming to be "University of Providence". They are no longer University of Great Falls. The name change was because of a merger with a medical organization and opening of a new health school at the college. I think this means they have some money. :) Let's hope football might be a part of that.

Someone brought up on Reddit if Providence College might sue them over the name change? I put down Great Falls so not to confuse between the two schools.

teamvsn,

Given the posts a few back .... hoping you could elaborate on why, for example, the Northern Sun Conference switched from NAIA to DII looks like back in the 90's? And why those reasons aren't (as) relevant for today's NAIA teams?

(07-18-2017 11:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Might want to read the title of your link there, for the friggin' correct name of the school ...

If I say Providence? People will hollar that the D1 school is not adding football. There could be a future lawsuit like Mount Mary did with the Mount Mary in California.

(07-18-2017 11:26 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Someone brought up on Reddit if Providence College might sue them over the name change? I put down Great Falls so not to confuse between the two schools.

Maybe, but they had good reason to choose the name. The joined with Providence St. Joseph Health to create a new school of health, and renaming the school with that in mind makes sense. "Providence" is not a branded name like, say, Verizon. I don't know about Mount Mary. But there's also a Providence College of California and they haven't been sued, as far as I know.

(07-18-2017 11:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  teamvsn,

Given the posts a few back .... hoping you could elaborate on why, for example, the Northern Sun Conference switched from NAIA to DII looks like back in the 90's? And why those reasons aren't (as) relevant for today's NAIA teams?

When you get down to the particulars of individual schools and conferences, you have to look at what makes sense to them at the time. I have no knowledge of why this conference transitioned. It was 25 years ago. But valid reasons could be:

* Geography: easier to schedule close conference and non-conference games
* Football: D2 is somewhat better than NAIA. In '92, there were two divisions in the NAIA, so if they were in the lower division D2 might have been a BIG step up.
* D1 aspirations: Might have been seen as a better stepping stone?
* Professional politics: Even now, the prime motivation for some schools to move appears to be better job prospects for department professionals. And this is true. Professionally, D2 IS a better stepping stone to a more prestigious and higher paying job (provided you are successful). It's very common for more than half of the personnel to be gone to greener pastures by the time a D2 transition is complete. But what's good for the coaches and administrators isn't always what's best for the school.
* Sport support: I would have to go back a look at the histories, but it's possible in '92 that the NCAA supported more sports that the schools wanted to offer than the NAIA did.
* Money: Cost differentials might not have been as significant then. For all I know, those schools were (and still are?) flush with cash.
* Higher profile: Did they think they'd get more media coverage for having a blue disc on their uniforms? Or maybe more butts in the seats? I suppose it's possible that they did, and maybe they were even right. I have no idea. But generally speaking this isn't the case. Sometimes you see a brief spike in coverage and attendance, but usually it doesn't last. You'd have to look at each school.

Since I am not really familiar with the conference, I looked it up on wikipedia. It seems that their move to D2 happened at the same time that separate men's and women's conferences merged into a single united conference. Maybe that had something to do with it?

Lest there be any confusion, I do not advocate that all D2 schools should go to the NAIA, or that any move to D2 is a bad decision. Clearly each has a niche. If a D2 school is successful where they are they should stay. But there's been a lot of ill-advised moves from NAIA to D2 in the last decade, and there really aren't many - if any - good D2 prospects in the NAIA left. And there are a LOT of D2 schools that would be better served by relocating to the NAIA. The NAIA's niche is low cost, low maintenance small college athletics. Spend money on student-athletes, not on administrations.

Fair enough, very good thank you!

Westminster College of Salt Lake City gets approval to move into third and final year of provisional membership in D-II.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86568...on-II.html

The GLVC will now sponsor DII men's lax with some affiliate members.

glvcsports.com/news/2017/7/11/general-glvc-announces-sport-sponorship-of-mens-lacrosse.aspx

Green Mountain College returning to the NAIA:

http://athletics.greenmtn.edu/sports/Gen...parts_NCAA

(07-18-2017 12:59 PM)teamvsn Wrote:  * Professional politics: Even now, the prime motivation for some schools to move appears to be better job prospects for department professionals. And this is true. Professionally, D2 IS a better stepping stone to a more prestigious and higher paying job (provided you are successful). It's very common for more than half of the personnel to be gone to greener pastures by the time a D2 transition is complete. But what's good for the coaches and administrators isn't always what's best for the school.

This is a terrific point and lost on most forum readers and posters. The pitch to move up is often a sales pitch first and foremost. The sales pitch is what people fall for.

I would add two points here

1. Professionals also includes sports media, as this helps fuel their career to cover a higher division school. They are just as biased and self serving as the athletic department staff.

2. Athletic Departments are semi-autonomous operations for the school, and their primary interest (below the power school level) is to justify larger money transfers from the institution to their department (better salaries).

I like to point out that one of the most common statements by athletic departments is that the institution (or student fees) have to transfer greater money to the department in order to preserve donations. The most extreme example is Eastern Michigan where their $30.2M D-I FBS budget consist of $24.3M in institutional transfers and only $607K in donations and $231K in ticket sales. Students did not renew the athletic fee, so that is zero. The ratio of transfers to donations is 30:1. That is an extreme case, where $96M has been transferred (plus $3M from the final two years of student fee), for just $2M in donations and $1.2M in gate. The students have strongly indicated they want the program to drop out of D-I (and drop football) but the professional politics you spoke of keeps them in FBS and D-I. Again an extreme case, but it is not uncommon now to see > 10:1 ratios of transfers to donations. (HBCU schools this is particularly strong).

The strongest indicator of whether the school's interest are truly at stake is if both the students support a move up (we have seen some schools where that is the case) and where the transfers are not increasing because other revenues go up faster than the costs. But if the move up significantly widens the gap of expenses to revenue, then you know the school's best interests were not the motivator. So looking at professional politics including the cheerleader media is where one should look for the driver.

If the decision was made to move up, then that decision was in the school's best interest, by definition. Otherwise the move would not have been made.

(08-05-2017 05:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If the decision was made to move up, then that decision was in the school's best interest, by definition. Otherwise the move would not have been made.

You can only hold this position if you believe:

1) athletic decision makers are saints, and in no way self interested.

or

2) athletic decision makers are omniscient, and know what the end results of the transition will be.

I don't believe either of those things to be true. I don't think they're evil, or stupid. But they aren't any more or less of these things than the general population. Which means that sometimes they make self interested decisions, and sometimes things don't work out like they planned.

What's an "athletic decision maker"??

I don't care what size or level a college, school, or university is ... ALL decisions, athletic or not, are made by get same few people: the president and the board of directors (this board has lots of different names across the country, but essentially that is what they are).

These few people make all the decisions relevant to the institution, and they're always made in the school's best interest in at least some sense, usually at least financially if nothing else, using the best information available at that time.

(08-05-2017 06:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  What's an "athletic decision maker"??

I don't care what size or level a college, school, or university is ... ALL decisions, athletic or not, are made by get same few people: the president and the board of directors (this board has lots of different names across the country, but essentially that is what they are).

These few people make all the decisions relevant to the institution, and they're always made in the school's best interest in at least some sense, usually at least financially if nothing else, using the best information available at that time.

Right, and politicians always make decisions that are best for their constituents, and executives always make decisions in the best interests of their shareholders, and leaders of non-profits always make decisions in the best interests of their stakeholders. LOL.

In other words you have no evidence of a move up that wasn't in the school's best interest.