A Different Perspective

When comparing Division I to Division III, it may be useful to see the positives and effects that a school may develop if they were to switch from a lower division to a higher one. When doing this, we can compare the uniqueness that Trinity cultivated by establishing other reasons for reclassifying divisions for athletic programs. There are many reasons that drive a university to change divisions such as “a desire for an increase in status, additional athletic department revenues, an increase in university applications, and a desired for an increase in student enrollment” (Smith et. al 118). However, these factors cannot guarantee success for programs that just assume Division I offers the best financial resources and support for their sports teams.

A case study was conducted that took a deeper look at Suburban University’s (SUBU) transition from the NAIA to the NCAA. The NAIA is another athletic organization; however, it is not as competitive or a large scale like that of the NCAA. The SUBU joined a conference in the NAIA ever since the university commenced (Smith et. al 122). After a while, other schools within their conference decided that they would like to join the NCAA Division II and III associations (Smith et. al 122). Their situation proves almost identical to the dilemma that Trinity faced in the following years after their departure from the Southland Conference. Being an independent gives the university tons of power and freedom to play specific teams and schedule according to how they would like, but the challenges begin to rise for funding and availability as other schools already are occupied by their own conference opponents. SUBU filed their bid for the NCAA and began participating in the Division II athletics within a short period of time (Smith et. al 122). Even though Trinity reclassified from Division I to Division III, this insight allows us to understand a different viewpoint that universities consider at the collegiate level. It also shows that each university endures different scenarios that lead them to establish their uniqueness and differentiation among other institutions.

Taking a deeper look at some of the motivations for universities interested in participating at the Division I level, a common theme arose between affiliation and status, culture, and finances. Status can be defined simply as a signal of quality to the market regarding the superior quality a person, organization, or a product has in comparison to peers (Podolny & Phillips, 1996)” (Smith et. all 125). Compared to other Division I programs, the meaning of status at Trinity focuses more on their academics. By cultivating and building academics and athletics side-by-side, they blend the mission and philosophy of Trinity all in one. But for SUBU, it attracts the attention of young student athletes looking for the opportunity to play sports at the next level. Here is a great example of how status can embody two separate ideas but prove beneficial in each circumstance. Moving onto culture, Trinity struggled to find their culture initially as students and alumni protested the change. Intramurals served as a way to build that community and school spirit during a time where our sports struggled to even win a game. After this, people began to rally behind the idea of participating in a conference that shared the same ideologies and beliefs that Trinity felt were important. For SUBU, culture to them came from being affiliated with the NCAA. The athletic administrator felt that “The culture here...there wasn’t a culture here. I don’t think, when the [the former AD] left, then there was a long stretch that things weren’t going that great, we lost that culture when [former AD] left. This transition into the NCAA will bring that culture back” (Smith et. al 126). Their culture for athletics surrounded solely on their partnership with the NCAA whereas Trinity combined their aspirations with their continual improvement in academics as well. Finally, we will take a look at finances and this may be the biggest difference between Trinity and the SUBU case.

Trinity just did not have the money to stay successful at such a competitive level as well as providing equal funds to all their athletic programs. Julie Jenkins began her coaching career at Trinity in 1985 and explained how “before her, funding for the athletic programs was not evenly dispersed”. Tennis and football were the only two sports that Trinity provided a solid budget for --not because they didn’t support all their programs, but tennis had a dominant standing within the nation and football had a long-lasting history for the school. Therefore, finances were already skewed at Trinity on top of insufficient funds to maintain a prominent Division I position. On the other hand, SUBU never mentioned a lack of money or funding for their athletic program. Their financial motivations aimed towards decreasing travel costs, improving the campaign for athletic facilities, and developing more strategies to bring revenue in (Smith et. al 128). SUBU had interest in designing their own football field from the ground up, which constitutes a big financial burden. The athletic administrator proposed, “That is not an NCAA requirement, but certainly as our competition rises, we want our offerings and our athletic environment on campus to suit that” (Smith et. al 128). Their financial motivation in this case once again surrounds the idea of recruiting and attracting more notice and involvement from athletes interested attending their school. The difference in financial desires play a big role in what an institutions overall mindset regarding expenses should be focused on and how they capitalize on their opportunities.