National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2000
« back to 2000 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
In Divisions II, III women's golf, two events better than one
|
STAFF WRITER
With the NCAA's efforts focused on providing additional opportunities for women, the decision to split the Divisions II and III Women's Golf Championships comes at a perfect time. Sponsorship numbers are stout. Interest seems to be growing on the high-school level. Member institutions are adding teams at a good clip. The combined championships -- which began in 1996 -- has grown as the popularity of women's golf has expanded.
But while both divisions applaud the move to a split championships, the two will do so somewhat reluctantly.
"This was a very difficult decision," said Monica Severson, assistant athletics director at Wartburg College and chair of the Division III Women's Golf Committee.
"I think everyone in both divisions agrees that we're like any other sport," said Sam Lesseig, women's golf coach at Truman State University and a member of the Division II Women's Golf Committee. "You'd like to have your own titles and your own tournament. At the same time, I think we'll miss our relationship with Division III."
With sponsorship numbers climbing, the need for a separate championships was apparent. Fifty sponsoring institutions were required for the change, according to Donna J. Noonan, vice-president for the Division I Women's Basketball Championship (Noonan previously worked with women's golf).
Most recent sponsorship numbers show there are 190 women's golf teams at Division I institutions, 70 in Division II and 115 in Division III.
This season, the Division II championship will include two teams and two individuals from each of four regions, totaling 48 participants -- 21 more than in 1999.
The Division III championship will have 60 participants (10 teams and 10 individuals from five regions), an additional 24 student-athletes from last year.
"Women's golf is really growing and being added at a lot of Division III institutions," Severson said. "With the emergence of our own championships, it is our hope that more schools will continue to add the sport."
The expansion of this championships was expected -- somewhat. During the planning of the first Divisions II and III championships, separate events were discussed.
"The long-range plan was that sponsorship would grow and the championships would eventually separate," said Lesseig, who was on the committee when there was only one tournament for all divisions. "That we've gotten to this point is a tremendous thing."
"I think everyone who is involved in any sport would like to have their own championships," Severson said. "We're very happy to have it, as I know Division II is happy."
Different perspectives
The fundamental difference between Divisions II and III is the issue of scholarship money. Division II institutions offer at least some scholarship dollars, while Division III schools mandate that no money shall be awarded based on athletics ability.
Such a difference should lead to an overwhelming difference in talent and resources in favor of Division II schools, right? Wrong. Division III member Methodist College claimed three of the four combined championships. Lynn University was the only Division II institution to snare a title.
With competition not necessarily the main issue, differing philosophies hold high importance.
"From a Division III perspective, we're very excited about the split," Severson said. "This will give us the opportunity to compete against schools with similar missions and will level the playing field."
Division II schools, meanwhile, will be able to compete against schools with similar goals and expectations.
"It wasn't really fair before," Lesseig said. "The resources are different in Divisions II and III, and the philosophy is very different."
The general thought was that eventually, differences between the divisions would cause larger problems for a combined championship. Scholarships and stronger athletics programs would possibly damage smaller programs trying to establish women's golf.
"You can look at it many ways, but I think splitting is the best for both (divisions)," Lesseig said.
Women's golf has enjoyed success since its inception as an NCAA championship sport in 1982. Now with a championships in each division, 45 more student-athletes will compete for a title in women's golf.
"One of the things we're always talking about is increasing opportunities for women," Severson said. "In five years, we've gone from a combined championships to a split event. And, I really think this will increase exponentially."
Lesseig thinks athletics departments that overlook women's golf are missing an opportunity.
"If you're sponsoring men's golf,
it doesn't make sense not to sponsor women's golf," he said. "The interest has grown tremendously on the high-school level, and the commitment has been made at the national level as well. Women's golf is easy to add, and the numbers are there."
Men's golf has sponsorship numbers that are almost double the figures for women's golf. According to Severson, men's golf is a strong model to follow.
"You can look at the same level in men's golf, and I hope we can duplicate that," Severson said. "They have many more participants. With that comes regional play, and other future steps. We'd like to get to that level. As long as the sport continues to grow, it's a possibility."
Closing a chapter
With the NCAA's more division-oriented governance structure, a two-division championships is rare. The parting of ways for Division II and III will allow those institutions involved to claim ownership of a tournament, and its teams will have new goals to shoot for, Lesseig said.
"There has been a shift toward having sharper divisions within the NCAA, which has focused everyone on their division," he said. "I really don't know what it's going to be like, but I'm proud that we have our own championships. I will miss the interaction with the Division III members, but that is part of this."
Severson, like Lesseig, sees divisional ownership of the championships as a positive. She also will miss the friendships established while working with Division II members.
"The partnership with Division II has been a good one," she said. "We have helped each other. The relationship will be missed, because there are so many tremendous people we worked with in Division II. Both groups really learned a lot from each other and helped make women's golf grow."
Divisions II and III berths
The following chart highlights the selection structure used for the 2000 Division II and Division III Women's Golf Championships.
Division II
|
Region |
Participants |
Teams |
Individuals |
|
East |
12 |
2 |
2 |
|
North |
12 |
2 |
2 |
|
Midwest |
12 |
2 |
2 |
|
West |
12 |
2 |
2 |
|
Total |
48 |
8 |
8 |
Division III
|
Region |
Participants |
Teams |
Individuals |
|
Region 1 |
11 |
2 |
1 |
|
Region 2 |
13 |
2 |
3 |
|
Region 3 |
13 |
2 |
3 |
|
Region 4 |
12 |
2 |
2 |
|
Region 5 |
11 |
2 |
1 |
|
Total |
60 |
10 |
10 |
Total for both 108 18 18
1999 Combined Championships
Division Participants
II 27
III 36
Total 63