Search News


Browse Archives

News

Nickel and Diming Athletics

July 7, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Some small private institutions are bristling at a set of National Collegiate Athletic Association rule changes that will require them to spend money on very specific upgrades to their sporting facilities.

Citing the economic downturn, the Presidents Council of the Centennial Conference, a group of Division III institutions mainly located in the Lancaster Valley of Pennsylvania, has asked the NCAA to reconsider a handful of association-wide changes the Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved last year. The panel, which includes representatives from all three divisions, mandated that all football-sponsoring institutions provide referees with wireless microphones to announce penalties. It also ordered that all basketball-playing NCAA members have shot clocks that display tenths of seconds and are mounted on each backboard. All backboards must also have lights that illuminate when the shot clock has expired.

Though the changes do not become mandatory until fall 2010, and institutions will have had more than two years to make the necessary upgrades, the Centennial presidents argue that, given the recession, it is not prudent for them to spend money on these changes to their sporting facilities when they have other grave financial concerns in their academic departments.

Steven F. Ulrich, executive director of the Centennial Conference, said his member institutions are not objecting to the rule changes. Instead, he is lobbying the NCAA to delay the deadline for complying for at least a year, given the state of the economy. The changes, he argued, will affect Division III institutions the most, as they are often smaller and do not have the financial resources Division I and II institutions have to make facilities upgrades.

While Ulrich is all for compliance, he acknowledged that some of the presidents in his conference are puzzled by the changes coming from on high, especially given the small size of their athletics programs.

“The highest attendance in Division III football comes in the Midwest,” Ulrich explained. “In the Mid-Atlantic, we’re not drawing more than 3,000 people for a football game. When I noted to our presidents that they were going to have to spend $5,000 on wireless microphones for referees to announce a holding call, they all said, ‘Can’t they move closer to the stands?’ In some respects, I understand what they’re saying. Sometimes we’re told, ‘It’s good for Division I, so it must be good for Division III.’ Well, that’s not always the case.”

The opinions expressed by the Centennial presidents are part of a larger tension that still exists within Division III. Last year, the non-scholarship division nearly split apart to create a Division IV, due to differences of opinion as to its future. Among the more serious items of concern for those in favor of the split included the ever-increasing operating costs of their athletics programs.

If institutions do not comply with the new facilities requirements in the time given, they will be ineligible to host NCAA championship events “because their facility would not be considered in full compliance with NCAA playing rules.”

Ty Halpin, NCAA liaison for the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, said it will be up to a financially strapped institution to decide whether this penalty is severe enough to compel it to make the requested changes, noting that some might not consider this burdensome.

“While the panel understands the economic issues that many institutions and conferences are dealing with, the group believes the rules committees have given a proper amount of time and notification for the alternations that may cause some financial impact,” Halpin wrote in response to the Centennial Conference’s request, noting that a survey of Division III programs showed that a large number were already in compliance.

In an interview, Halpin defended the rule changes, noting that they would lead to a more equitable experience for athletes at all levels of college play. He also argued that they might lead to better officiating in the lower-profile divisions.

“When football players are penalized by their number or even penalties are announced over a loudspeaker by the referee, that’s part of the experience student-athletes want to have,” Halpin said. “Also, in relation to the basketball changes, having a light come on when the shot clock has expired might help [officials in Division II and III] make proper calls. As most of their games are not televised, they often don’t have the benefit of a courtside monitor to review plays.”

One of Centennial’s presidents, however, believes the “student-athlete experience” is fine just the way it is today. In fact, if he had it his way, he might even get rid of some of the more recent changes.

“I think this raises an issue that we have to figure out as Division III programs,” said John Strassburger, president of Ursinus College and chair of the Centennial Conference Presidents Council. “Athletics, at our institutions, are vying with a whole array of costs. Division I and II institutions often have large fund raising apparatuses. We don’t. The NCAA is not taking into consideration the welter of institutional needs aside from athletics. What I want to see is a moratorium on any additional costs to be imposed on Division III institutions.”

The last major facilities changes mandated by the NCAA went into effect last year. All NCAA men’s basketball arenas were required to move the three-point line further from the basket. Much like the forthcoming changes for football referees and basketball shot clocks, institutions had to foot the bill.

Centennial is currently lobbying the Division III Management and Presidents Councils to fight for a stay of these facilities mandates. By the guidelines of the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, however, the deadline for compliance can be pushed back only for all member institutions; there cannot be individual exceptions.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Nickel and Diming Athletics

  • inconsistent
  • Posted by Prof on July 7, 2009 at 7:00am EDT
  • Good for Ursinus. But if they're so keen to keep costs down, why is their men's basketball team taking a trip to Florida next season? Isn't there plenty of good competition in the northeast? Guessing many of their conference brethren (and DIII sport teams throughout the nation) are also making similarly expensive, out of region trips. Last year some D-III teams traveled to Hawaii. Seems like an inconsistent application of the alleged D-III philosophy. And please, lets not use the very tired "this was fundraised for" defense. Spending is spending...particularly in these tough economic times. That all said, a microphone to announce penalties at a D-III game as a necessary part of the student-athlete experience....please. Agree that such an expenditure is silly.

  • Posted by jim on July 7, 2009 at 8:30am EDT
  • It seems to me that football and basketball on the scale of NCAA league membership is no longer "student relaxation and healthy competition" anymore; it is Big Business" and as such, should be treated like any other business. Spend what ever is needed to keep the money flowing in, up to the point where ROI is decreasing drastically.
    If D3 colleges don't consider themselves to be in that sort of business, then get out of the NCAA and treat their sports programs as informal efforts. You can't have it both ways.

  • Business or Pleasure?
  • Posted by jim on July 7, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • It seems to me that football and basketball on the scale of NCAA league membership is no longer "student relaxation and healthy competition" anymore; it is Big Business" and as such, should be treated like any other business. Spend what ever is needed to keep the money flowing in, up to the point where ROI is decreasing drastically.
    If D3 colleges don't consider themselves to be in that sort of business, then get out of the NCAA and treat their sports programs as informal efforts. You can't have it both ways.

  • Huh?
  • Posted by Commenter on July 7, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Jim,

    Did you read the article? For D-III, football and basketball is NOT big business - never has been and never will be. D-III athletic departments do not give scholarships, do not turn profits, and many do not charge admission to any games.

    The reality is that Division III is the largest division in the NCAA - it is unfair for the NCAA to hoist upon Division III new expenditures that do little more than "fancy up" the games, just because the semi-pros in FCS football and major/mid-major D-I basketball want them.

  • Long Road Trips
  • Posted by Commenter on July 7, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Prof,

    I work in Division III athletics, and, like you, I do wish more schools started "walking the walk" when it comes to be fiscally responsible with long trips over winter or spring break. Yes, the money is usually fundraised and, yes, there is usually also a financial contribution required of the athletes/parents to go on these trips, but, you are right - it does not look good and in most cases is not necessary. Honestly, if a program is going to fundraise/ask parents to pay for a long trip, it ought to be - if anything - a once-every-few-years foreign exhibition tour. That would give the student-athletes the travel abroad experience that many of them pass up on because of their sports - something with a lot more long-term value to developing students than five nights in Orlando, a couple of games at a local gym, and a day at Universal.

  • Posted by Brian on July 7, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • "When football players are penalized by their number or even penalties are announced over a loudspeaker by the referee, that's part of the experience student-athletes want to have."

    I expect a certain amount of BS from the NCAA - it's a time-honored tradition - but even this pushes their already substantial boundaries. As a former D3 offensive lineman, I'd rather have only my coach and the refs know I got penalized. At least then I would only get chewed out by my coach and escape unnoticed by the crowd.

    Seriously though, if the NCAA truly believes this - particularly at the Division III level - then they are more delusional than even I thought. If this ever was a part of the 'student-athlete experience' that I wanted, it ranked around No. 4,871.

  • Wow, Business or Pleasure
  • Posted by Mike on July 7, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Jim, do you really even know the real difference between all three NCAA levels? After having played at a D III and worked in athletics at the other two levels there is a world of difference between them. Your remark is not warranted and frankly the NCAA rhetoric of student athlete experience is a tired expression that really means the coaches at the BCS D I schools want these things in place. Why you may ask, to be more like the professional ranks.

    Athletics is a business and will be a business but it varies to degrees at different levels. When you compare the SEC and PAC 10 to the pro's the only real difference are some rules and the lack of student athlete salaries. Please do not start the conversation of student athletes being paid because that discussion is so worthless it is incredible.

    Lastly, this article is shining example as to who runs the NCAA, BCS schools, because please remember that the NCAA is made up of all the schools in the country and the people that work there only either enforce or interpret the rules for the most part. The flaw in the NCAA is the governance structuring which requires schools to monitor themselves, schools are not created equal and therefore a level playing field is never going to be achieved. This classic case of the have's and have not's is going to become more and more evident now that the ivory towers should begin to crack as athletic debts become more apparent over the next two years. This legislation is just one more item of business as usual for the BCS schools. Hell, the D I school I just worked at would not have the money to pay for this legislation. My question is if the market value of coaches salaries is ever going to take a hit because I have never been able to figure out why some coach is worth anywhere from 80K to 4 mil a year. That is the only real business part of the industry, cut the salaries and most schools in the country would be able to comply with this legislation.

    Jim, do not make the same mistake most people make in lumping all athletic programs or levels together because you commit the same old fallacy of false syllogism.

  • Re: Coaches Salaries
  • Posted by Commenter on July 7, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Mike,

    I agree with most of your points but not your idea that you could "cut the salaries and most schools in the country would be able to comply with this legislation." At my private Division III school, the majority of our 13 head coaches - four of which coach two varsity sports) - do not even make half of $80,000/year. The few that do are also administrators and/or have been there for years - and even they aren't approaching 80K.

    I would believe we are closer to the norm in DIII than the exception.

  • Following suit
  • Posted by RBG on July 7, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
  • What's the big fuss? Shouldn't we all recognize that NCAA has precedent for this? Hasn't the Federal goverment been saddling states with new requirements for years, always with the proviso that the states find a way to pay for these requirements? Obviously, NCAA has simply adopted this procedure as a way of life.

  • Posted by Lonewolf on July 8, 2009 at 5:00am EDT
  • I have to agree with Jim to an extent (as I also believe there should be a split in DIII) as there are many DIII athletics programs that are ran and treated more business like than more than a few DII schools. And some are only spouting (notice I said some) the "we aren't the same as DII/DI" mantra when it benefits them. (And yes, I have worked and had friends work in athletics from multiple schools at all 3 levels of the NCAA and have friends that work in all the NJCAA and NAIA groups too)

    As far as coaches salaries go...I can definately see cutting the top salaries of some of the football and basketball coaches down some. However, most coaches are trying to make ends meet, and as long as the NCAA is going to have restrictions on the # of coaches (in effect requiring 70+hr work weeks with no holidays) for coaches who want to be successful and keep their jobs, then I don't really see a problem with paying some of them $80K or more (Hourly they're making less than a good portion of equally educated staff on campus...and a heck of a lot less than most unionized auto-factory workers.)

  • Posted by Mike on July 8, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Commenter, thank you for correcting my salary recommendation because it was meant for the other divisions not D III. I am well aware of how many jobs a coach has at a D III. I agree that most of them do not make the windfall that is evident at the D I level. D II does drop off significantly but there is a load of staffs that use lower levels to get themselves to the better paying positions.

    Lonewolf, there is no need for a split of D III because it already exists and it is called D II. The D III's that you are suggesting, and I agree that they do exist, should get off their high horses and move to the next level if that is how they want to act. The reason they do not is because they would loose their pride busting dominance in the sports they hold so dear. It is the fault of the institutional oversight, ala president, which perpetuates the problem that is being described here. I do not care how much a president is willing to say they are here for the right reasons because as soon as it their school that is being asked to change it becomes a different story for them. Look at Florida State as an example, lets not vacate wins because it will punish the coach who had no connection to this academic fraud scandal. The rule was changed to make it more about the past instead of today. None of the schools in the NCAA wants to accept the sanctions when their hand is caught in the cookie jar, again lack of accountability and messed up governance process. Scream loud enough or pay the right lawyer and sanctions are lowered or dismissed.

    As for the salaries of coaches, I have news for you, I know of a coach that makes over a half mill and I rarely saw him on campus. I am tired of listening to how much time coaches have to put in to do their jobs. If you do not like the hours then get out of the business. I have worked with coaches that do not even have a degree's but made twice as much as me and I have a masters with over ten years of experience. I will concede that I am speaking of revenue sports and not olympic which are pretty much what you are referring to when it comes to lower respectively. I know this discussion can go on forever but please remember that the majority of coaches are in it for the love of coaching and the money. The amount of coaches I have worked with that do it solely for the love is a rarity and I have worked with one that was a past olympian in fencing. this coach's office was in a storage closet, an actual storage closet. The coach happened to be the winningest coach in the department but he was treated like this because he was there to balance out gender equity.

    How about this notion, salaries should be toned down and leveled with the olympic coaching counter parts, this is for the D I and DII levels.

    I will apologize for the length but not the passion because I know from personal experience what is like to be used by the athletic machine even before I was in college and after have worked in the environment for over ten years I have seen the good but mostly the ugly side of this business. Maybe what I should is start a blog on college athletics that speaks to the reality of the environment both positive and negative to help dispel the assumptions.

  • DIII rule changes
  • Posted by Charles T. Lord , Athletic Recruiter/Admissions Representative at Delta College on July 14, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • If the NCCAA were truly interested in the views of their constituents especially at the DIII level, they would make the rule optional for DIII and, when reviewing bids for post season tournaments, they would not approve a bid to a school that failed to comply with the rule.
    Coaches salaries, funding, and all the other issues become a mute point. Quit looking at imposing sanctions and focus on encouraging individual conferences to incorporate the rule changes.

    CTL