Here is some more information on the issues surrounding the NCAA Membership Reorganization discussion.
Question and Answer Guide
Report of the Working Group on Membership Issues
NCAA Working Group on Membership links
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The Division III Presidents Council and other administrators within the NCAA have had much discussion about the future of NCAA Division III, most recently related to the seemingly impending restructuring of Division III.
An important voice – that of the Division III student-athletes – has been absent from much of this discussion.
Haverford College’s Student-Athlete Advisory Committee would like to offer this letter as a means of offering a voice – a student-athlete perspective – that should be factored into the national discussion.
Haverford College’s Student-Athlete Advisory Committee is strongly opposed to the idea of restructuring Division III for the following reasons:
1. Despite the fact that Division III continues to grow and continues to include an ever-widening range of institutional philosophies about the role of intercollegiate athletics, the Division III student-athlete experience continues to be very positive, rich and fulfilling. Our student-athletes are satisfied with their ability to grow, develop and compete at the highest level – as students and as athletes – within the current Division III structure. Our student-athletes believe that their intercollegiate athletics experience already includes more than enough regulation. Restructuring Division III would potentially damage the student-athletes’ ability to have a meaningful, significant intercollegiate athletics experience.
2. One of the primary reasons for the potential restructuring of Division III is the access ratio for championships – more specifically, how the NCAA is able to finance the cost of championships. Our student-athletes believe that the risk of damaging the student-athlete experience by restructuring Division III is significantly greater than the potential reward of maintaining a more equitable access ratio to championships. Our student-athletes believe that the NCAA should continue to cap the legislated maximum bracket size of three weeks and 64 teams for championships and allow the access ratio to naturally dilute as Division III continues to grow.
3. It should be noted that our student-athletes do care about competing for national championships. It’s our belief that everyone should strive to achieve such lofty standards of excellence. However, access to championships shouldn’t be a right (or a legislated, equitable ratio) granted to student-athletes; it should be a privilege that continues to be earned by hard work and performance.
4. There are some philosophical and pragmatic inconsistencies related to the idea of restructuring Division III. If restructuring occurs, then how would the NCAA finance the cost of a fourth division’s championships? If a fourth division wouldn’t have championships, then why wouldn’t the NCAA just maintain the current Division III structure which already includes limits to the access ratio for championships? Furthermore, if restructuring occurs, then the potential exists for a significant increase in travel for regular-season contests. If inter-division contests would be permitted (to ease the travel burden for regular-season contests), then, in essence, teams are competing against each other anyway and wouldn’t need a new divisional structure.
5. The idea of restructuring Division III continues to move forward despite significant sentiment to the contrary. The Future of Division III Membership Survey: Interim Report (November 9, 2004) stated “there was majority support for maintaining the status quo, both for maintaining the current levels of support for NCAA services and for maintaining the current Division III structure.” Furthermore, the Haverford Group – a consortium of small, liberal arts colleges from around the nation – determined during its meeting last year that – despite the ever-growing differences between Division III members – there was not a need to consider restructuring NCAA Division III. As a result of these statements and others that have been made over the past few years, it doesn’t appear that there is a dire need to restructure Division III.
Haverford College’s Student-Athlete Advisory Committee is against the idea of restructuring Division III for these reasons and many more.
It is our hope that this letter will be discussed at the Centennial Conference Student-Athlete Advisory Committee meeting on Sunday, November 18 and ultimately serve as the inspiration for some sort of collective student-athlete communication to the NCAA Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee about this issue.
Respectfully,
Haverford College Student-Athlete Advisory Committee
Post a Comment