Talk:NCAA Division III

Tone of last couple sentences
I don't like the tone that comes across in the last couple sentences, it seems awfully negative. If someone with better writing skills could fix it up I'd appreciate it. Also, expanding the article is of course welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellsass (talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 August 2004 (UTC)

Stub?
Why/how is this a stub? Isn't this fairly complete? What more is needed? A list of D-3 conferences or schools? Rlquall 02:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Age limit?
Is there an age limit for participating athletes? Can an NCAA "Rules, policies, restrictions" section be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.75.150 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Such a section belongs in the main NCAA article, not here. And no, there are not any age restrictions per se, only limits in how many years of "eligibility" one has to play collegiate sports.  Every year or two, there is a story about some middle-aged guy, usually recently retired from the U.S. military, who is now liviing out his dream by playing college football, typically at a DIII institution, which is perfectly OK if he hasn't used up his eligibility by competing in collegiate sports at some level in the past.  Rlquall 15:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

POV, redundancy
"The level of play is quite good" is strictly unverifiable POV. "Good" compared to what? DI? In which sports? Also, the fact stated in the first para that they do not give athletically-related financial aid is essentially repeated in the second para saying that there are no DIII athletic scholarships. Let's try to get this right. Rlquall 15:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:NCAA logo.svg
The image File:NCAA logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --13:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So is Div.III completely separate or can they play Div.I or Div.II ?
I am here because the article on Jeremy Lin has a comment from a recruiter that "He is a Div.III player" or some such. Does this mean he can't play well enough to be considered for an athletic scholarship in a "Div.I" school? So Div.III are the players that aren't very good? TY 76.171.125.202 (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * NCAA divisions are classifications of educational institutions. A college can have Division I, Division II, or Division III athletics.  Each division corresponds to a different level of institutional support for athletics, including athletic scholarships.  As a result, the best players gravitate to Division I schools, but there's nothing keeping them from attending and playing for a school in a lower division.  Powers T 16:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

WAP assignment
Jeterfan252 (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Terms and Descriptions
I would recommend against using terms like "higher level" or "lower level" or "play up" or "play down" in regards to Division I versus Division III. A lot of alumni, athletic staff, and athletes would disagree with those designations due to a less well-known perspective. Accordingly, I have reworded such prejudicial terms in the article, and will explain why.

Public perceptions of the NCAA divisions are quite often guided by the sports media. Sports media often research what they will cover, which is generally Division I sports. Their actual knowledge of anything outside of that is quite often limited. I would like to explain other perspectives.

Professional coaching and athletic department staff have a better understanding of the divisions, and their lack of actual significance in terms of quality, than sports media. For instance, in 2012, Division I men's basketball powerhouse Butler University had just won runner-up at a prestigious tournament and was once again nationally ranked. Their next game was against an unranked Division III program which had been successful that season. Butler University's men's basketball head coach expressed to WNDY channel 13 sports media that he was worried about that game, and after the game, expressed relief that his team won. There are reasons why Division III programs which would occasionally play against Division I teams in sports where only two teams compete against each other sometimes have difficulty getting a game.

Fact is, many, and quite possibly most, Division III junior and senior athletes could contribute to at least some Division I programs if they could transfer without the NCAA penalty and if they were willing to do so. However, Division III schools generally treat varsity athletics as simply an extracurricular activity, and because of this, student athletes are expected to pursue studies under the same general conditions as the rest of the student body. Being Division III student athletes often involves challenges which are minimized for varsity athletes in other NCAA divisions. Being able to play at a level where many, if not most, junior and senior athletes would be just as good as some Division I counterparts, while meeting the academic demands of most Division III schools, is arguably something a lot of Division I athletes could not do.

Believe it or not, to a lot of Division III student athletes, athletic staff, and alumni, Division II and Division I are actually viewed as steps DOWN. Division III does what it focuses on better than the other NCAA Divisions do. It is a matter of perspective what is "up" or "down." So, I recommend refraining from "lower level" or "higher level" or similar prejudicial terms in regards to the NCAA Divisions.

DTron Whiz 22:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

section
The "on rosters in 2012" section is dated, and should either be updated or removed. IMHO. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Chadron State is DII, not DIII, and as such Danny Woodhead should be removed from this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.227.191.154 (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on NCAA Division III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150404021452/http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Facts%20and%20Figures%202014_FINAL_.pdf to https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Facts%20and%20Figures%202014_FINAL_.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on NCAA Division III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131020020331/http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa+old/who+we+are/differences+among+the+divisions/division++iii/about+division+iii to http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa+old/who+we+are/differences+among+the+divisions/division++iii/about+division+iii

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Financial comparison
Division III institutions do not have the same access to scholarship money when it comes to the recruiting process. Division III sports offer non-athletic financial aid packages rather than athletically-based support. In addition (as noted previously), the NCAA prohibits Division III schools from using any athletically-related factor in determining financial aid awards, and also requires that the amount of aid awarded to athletes at a Division III school be closely proportional to the percentage of athletes in the student body. Division I sports teams are able to provide aid more directly through athletic based-scholarships. Division III schools, barred from using athletics as an aid criterion, have more choice in how they allocate their funds. Not only is there more financial support that is specifically given to Division I athletes, but Division I teams and facilities receive more funding from the NCAA. The NCAA puts substantially more money towards Division I programs than it does Division III. Sixty percent of all NCAA revenue is given directly to Division I institutions alone. From 2009–2010, $433 million made up the NCAA's Division I expenses. Only about three percent of the NCAA’s spending goes towards Division III programs. The differences in financial support has been a major cause in further differences between both divisions.

Athletic and academic comparison
NCAA regulations in competition and time commitment have made Division III athletics seem less strenuous and binding when compared to Division I athletics. Each sport is subject to different regulations, but when comparing the same sports in Division I and Division III competition, there are differences. For example, Division III baseball limits the number of games to 40 per season while Division I baseball sets the limit at 56 games per season. According to a 2008 NCAA survey, participants admitted devoting more time to athletics than they did towards academic responsibilities. This survey found that the average "major" Division I athlete devotes 44.8 hours a week to athletic responsibilities in addition to a little less than 40 hours a week set aside for academic life, and about two out of every three considered themselves athletes more than students. This difference in time commitment can also be seen in the average number of classes missed. Twenty-one percent of Division I baseball players miss more than three classes per week compared to twelve percent of Division III baseball players. This pattern is similar in other sports as well according to the 2011 NCAA survey.

The primary difference between Division III and the other Divisions is that athletics-based financial aid is prohibited in Division III. In Division I, athletics-based financial aid can keep a student athlete competing even if the athlete's enthusiasm declines. In Division III, such financial aid is prohibited; student athletes compete entirely per their own volition. In Division I, it is common to provide special academic support for athletes to make school easier for them. This can include tutors, facilities, staff who work with faculty to facilitate the athletes' experiences, and/or athletics department advising on course selections. While some Division I coaches do encourage athletes to work hard in athletics, this is not guaranteed, and a threat of withdrawal of financial support is a possibility if coaches feel that an athlete is making "unnecessary" academic efforts that conflict with athletic development. In Division III, athletes are expected to attend to academic responsibilities under the same conditions as the general student body, and are generally expected to be responsible students whose academic performance reflects well on the athletics program. The hours spent in training and competition use time that other students spend on study. This puts the athlete at an academic disadvantage. This means athletics actually makes school more difficult for Division III athletes, rather than easier.

The publicity given to Division I and to Division III differs. Sports media focuses almost exclusively on Division I, and pay scant attention to any other portions of college athletics. Financial aid differences, academic conditions, and publicity all affect recruiting. Division I schools tend to get the top prospects. Some prospects sought by Division I programs choose a Division III program for academic/educational or other reasons, but they are exceptions to the norm.

It is in some ways difficult to gauge the difference in athletic performance. In racing sports, such as cross country and track & field, it is simple because all one has to do is look at the individual and team standings. In sports where only two teams play each other, it is more difficult. Massey Ratings does attempt to rank college teams across NCAA Divisions. As of November 19, 2013, NCAA Division III had 448 members, and the Massey Ratings had over 100 Division III men's basketball teams ranked among Division I teams. Women's basketball had 88 Division III teams ranked among Division I teams. Women's tennis had over 170 Division III teams ranked among Division I teams. Women's soccer had over 300 Division III teams ranked among Division I teams. Women's volleyball had over 300 Division III teams ranked among Division I teams. These are the fall sports where only two teams play each other at a time, and where over 300 members of each Division field teams. In all of these rankings, the top teams were Division I teams. While these rankings are in constant states of flux as the seasons progress, they are typical of the substantial overlap between the Divisions, with the top teams being Division I teams.

A variety of factors complicate comparisons between Division I and Division III in sports where only two teams play each other at a time. These include the relative rarity of such competitions, as well as the fact that often the only thing publicized is who won, not the actual competition. Further, both programs have to consent to such competitions. Naturally, schools are more prone to use limited schedule slots to play against teams in their own NCAA Division and mostly to members of their own conference. Division I programs invest money in winning, and scheduling is done on the basis of conference obligations and likelihood of winning; exceptions might be made for financial incentive, desired publicity, and/or a challenge to catalyze improvement. Traditionally, prejudices have also discouraged Division I teams from scheduling Division III teams in such sports during the regular season, and not all conferences allow it.

In sports where only two teams compete at a time, the portion of Division I gets the most media coverage does have the occasional competition with more obscure Division I programs. These competitions are more common than versus Division III programs.

A microcosm from men's basketball could be considered. In November 2012, an unranked Division III team played a ranked Division I team, was down as much as 17 points in the first half, cut the lead to fluctuate between 8 and 17 points, and was only down 10 points at halftime — then cut the lead to single digits again after halftime before eventually losing. The ranked Division I team had a larger halftime lead against another ranked Division I team the week before, later had a halftime lead of 31 points against another Division I team, and went on to beat the #1 team in Division I. The next month, another Division III team played against another Division I team and led with 12 minutes remaining before eventually losing. In regards to this second Division I team that season, it defeated another Division I team by a larger margin, and that team beat several other Division I teams by 20+ points, one of which had multiple victories of 20+ points over other Division I teams. Other Division I teams beat/beatable by a wide margin by either of these two Division I teams could have likely been defeated by one or both of these two Division III teams or others roughly equal to or superior to them. Occasionally, a Division III team does come out on top at the end, but more often than not, the game follows one of #1–3.

The prior paragraph referenced a game from December 2012, and those two teams played again on November 23, 2013. This time, the Division III team won. The same month, a Division II played both a Division I team and a Division III team, which is an unusual situation. They beat the Division III team by four points and the Division I team by two points. A few years prior, a Division III team beat another Division I school and that team ended the season with a 16–16 record, beating a Division II opponent and being 15–15 among Division I opponents.

An indirect way to compare NCAA Division I and NCAA Division III in sports where only two teams compete with each other at a time is to consider the NAIA, a separate intercollegiate athletics association that allows athletics-based financial aid. Competitions with NCAA Division I programs versus NAIA programs are more common in such sports than versus NCAA Division III programs. NCAA Division III programs compete more frequently with NAIA programs than with NCAA Division I programs. NCAA Division III victories against NAIA programs are a fairly common occurrence. NAIA victories against NCAA Division I programs do happen in these sports but they are not common.

In sports where only two teams play each other, most Division I teams do not have a single Division III team on their schedules, and most Division III teams do not have a single Division I team on their schedules.

In racing sports, sports teams usually compete against more than one team at a time. Further, programs have less control over whom they compete against. They can control who comes to competitions they host, and they can control which competitions they travel to, but they have little to no influence on what other teams come to competitions that others host. These factors cause teams from each Division to compete with more teams both in their Division and in other Divisions.

It is common in racing sports, such as cross country and track and field, to see Division III teams compete with Division I teams, especially at large meets. Because of the common competition across Divisions in such sports, it is common to see Division III teams beat Division I teams in these sports. It is even more common for the same among individual competitors. The overlap that can be inferred in other sports is clear in these sports.

Academically, Division I and Division III have different priorities. In Division I, typically, the athlete is expected to focus on prime athletic preparedness, and perform adequately in academics to meet NCAA academic eligibility minimums. Special support sponsored by the school or athletic department exclusively for athletes is a common practice. This can include such things as tutoring provided exclusively for athletes, facilities, staff to work with faculty to facilitate the athlete's experience, and/or recommended courses. In Division III, athletes are expected to pursue their educations under the same general conditions as other students. Division III athletes are known to put much more emphasis on their academic experience. Alumni of Division III colleges often attach a certain amount of prestige to their degrees, and expect current administrations to protect that prestige by rejecting special treatment for athletes, and holding athletes to the same academic conditions as the general student body. College authorities in Division III have chosen that affiliation in general because they do not want conflicts between strict academic priorities and sports competitiveness. Those authorities expect coaching staffs to support those academic priorities. Simply maintaining NCAA academic eligibility minimums is typically not adequate to satisfy expectations Division III coaching staffs place on their athletes. In general, Division III athletes are expected to have solid academic performance to support a positive image of their programs.

Effects on student athletes
The differences in division requirements and financial regulation have led to some distinct differences in student life. Participation in school activities outside of intercollegiate athletics is more common in Division III athletes, and they are more likely to see themselves as part of their college's community. Division III athletes are also known to put much more emphasis on their academic experience, including participation in on-campus research and extra-curricular activities. Not only is there more involvement, but Division III Athletes have proven more successful in time management compared to non-athletes at the same institution. There are also differences in the student-athlete social experience. Division I athletes are more likely to have friends who are exclusively part of their respective team.

Division III athletes in general must live a disciplined lifestyle to be successful, because they must undergo rigorous training to compete at the level expected of NCAA/NAIA athletes, and they must attend to their academic responsibilities on the same terms as other students. The NCAA requires a C grade point average to remain eligible, but it is common for Division III programs to consider this unsatisfactory for their athletes. Coaches commonly conduct study tables and other team events to ensure athletes see their athletic ventures as tied to their academic responsibilities. There are not supposed to be course sections specifically for athletes, nor are there supposed to be athletic tutors nor similar special academic support provided by the institution. Athletes are expected to pursue their degrees under the same conditions as other students.

Division III alumni are often proud of their college experiences, and of what is commonly referred to as "the Division III culture" and/or "the Division III philosophy."


 * End Section

I don't think any of this should be in the article, but if someone wants to massively edit it, or pick out a few bits, please do so. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 05:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Text
The last Division III program to beat a Division I team was Maryville College (TN) over East Tennessee State University, a school that had just revived its FCS football program after a 12-year absence, on September 10, 2015 by a score of 28-21.

Offensive linesman Ali Marpet of Hobart College, drafted in the 2nd round, 61st overall, of the 2015 NFL draft, is the highest-drafted pick in the history of Division III football.

Recently added Division III football programs
1997 – Greensboro 1998 – Texas Lutheran, Mary Hardin-Baylor 1999 – Mount Ida 2000 – Averett, East Texas Baptist, Louisiana College, Rockford, Shenandoah, Wisconsin Lutheran 2001 – Christopher Newport, Utica 2002 – No new programs added 2003 – Endicott, Huntingdon, Husson 2004 – North Carolina Wesleyan 2005 – Becker 2006 – LaGrange, SUNY-Maritime 2007 – St. Vincent, Birmingham-Southern 2008 – St. Scholastica 2009 – Anna Maria, Castleton State 2010 – Pacific (OR) 2011 – Presentation, Stevenson 2012 – Misericordia 2013 – Hendrix, Berry, Southwestern 2014 – George Fox 2015 – Finlandia 2016 - No new programs added 2017 - University of New England Planned 2018 - Alvernia


 * End section.

This is too detailed for an article about all of D-III sports. Various sports can have sections, I left the football one, but they should be brief and if possible, see also to main articles. CFB and NFL projects will be notified. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 06:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I-II-III linkbox discussion at WT:CFB
There's a discussion at WikiProject College Football about Template:NCAA divisions, the "I-II-III" linkbox at the top right of this page, and whether it should be replaced with an infobox. All are welcome to join in. ``` t b w i l l i e ` $1.25 ` 21:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)