Division III Coming Under Fire

Author: Peter Yordan

Prompted by a wave of Division III athletic reform proposals championed by John McCardell, Middlebury College president and the chair of the Division III Presidents Council, Middlebury College has found itself in the middle of a maelstrom of contentious national debate over the controversial role of student athletes. The nine-point plan submitted by the Council on Aug. 7 would have little direct impact upon Middlebury athletes but further fuels questions about what place athletics should occupy at the College.

When Division III was founded 30 years ago its charter members sought to escape the excesses which were beginning to taint big-time college athletics. Their efforts, based principally upon the elimination of athletic scholarships, were largely successful in allowing member schools to avoid spiraling cost and importance which Division I athletic departments began to demand. Division III has grown steadily more popular since its inception and sits today as far and away the largest division in the NCAA, with 426 members.

In recent years, however, increased pressure has come upon the division to further define the role of student athletes on college campuses. "A lot of people aren't happy with the growth of the division," said Alison Connolly, the college's NCAA special assistant. "A lot of the newer members are hopping on the bandwagon only because of the athletic benefits without really buying into the philosophy."

The reform plan, formulated in response to a lengthy survey sent to every Division III school, calls for a realignment with the core philosophy of Division III athletics. "The impetus to reform is traceable back several years to a decision to take a long look at the future of the division," said McCardell. "I am not certain that the integrity of Division III athletics is threatened, but I do wonder how much larger, and more diverse, the division can become before it topples under its own weight."

Under the proposal, redshirting would be eliminated, playing seasons would be curtailed, institutions would be required to file comprehensive financial aid reports for athletes versus non-athletes, and Division III schools that "play up" in one or two Division I sports would no longer be able to offer athletic scholarships in those sports. The last article has proven to be the most contentious, as schools like Johns Hopkins with its storied Division I lacrosse program and hockey powerhouse Colorado College have launched a vociferous campaign to maintain their Division I scholarships. "If you believe in the philosophy of Division III, then no Division III institution should give financial aid based on athletic performance," said Middlebury Athletic Director Russ Reilly. "To me it is a philosophical argument. You are either Division III or you're not."

The fierce debates have prompted criticism of Middlebury and the rest of the NESCAC schools for their strong pro-reform positions. "I think there is a lot of discrepancy between NESCAC and Division III," said Connolly. "Right now we are playing under more stringent rules in NESCAC than in the rest of the Division." The majority of proposed legislation would not affect Middlebury because NESCAC schools have long voluntarily played under the guidelines suggested by the Presidents Council.

NESCAC plays shorter schedules and prohibits non-traditional scheduling which keeps teams playing all year round instead of the normal one season. No NESCAC school maintains a Division I team. Such strict controls have led the conference to be labeled as elitist. "I think because NESCAC schools have far more restrictive rules and still have the success we've had we probably are perceived as elitist," said Reilly. "We are perceived by some as NESCAC trying to bring the rest of Division III down (or up) to NESCAC."

President McCardell refutes the suggestion that he and the conference are seeking to mold every Division III school in their image. "NESCAC may be perceived as elitist, but our rules work for us, and we do not seek to impose them on any other institutions or conferences. At the same time, I suspect that there are other institutions and conferences that wish they were, and are attempting to become, more rather than less like NESCAC."

There have been rumblings of the possible creation of a Division IV should the currents of college athletics continue to flow against the wishes of Middlebury and other like-minded institutions. "The time may come, especially if the division is unwilling to embrace any of the proposed reforms, that some institutions may seek to create a new division. But any talk of that is, in my view, premature," said McCardell.

In the meantime, Middlebury will work to define its own place within the NCAA Division III framework. "I would have said 12 years ago that NESCAC was the ideal," said Reilly, reflecting on the era before Middlebury entered in nationwide Division III championships. "It probably still is. The advantage of having only regional postseasons is that the postseason ended eight days after the season was over."

Even without non-traditional schedules, Middlebury athletes find it increasingly difficult to play multiple sports. "If we can't make Division III work I'm not so sure we just shouldn't go back to the way NESCAC was before we competed at a national level," said Reilly.

Among Middlebury athletic staff, however, there is an overwhelmingly positive feeling toward the proposed legislation. "It was encouraging to see the response," said Connolly. "Across the board there was such a concern among college staff for the welfare of the students, above and beyond any coaching staff even in NESCAC. The staff here at Middlebury really have a great understanding of the big picture."