The
administration of non-NCAA intercollegiate “club” sports has traditionally been
a “student-driven” affair with little to no institutional support or oversight.
When one thinks of “club” sports in the ‘70s, ‘80s or even ‘90s one might think
of beer-soaked rugby, lacrosse or hockey games with zero school
involvement. This all changed because colleges
and universities began to take more of an interest in their club sports, originally
because of liability issues. They did not want “clubs” representing the
university, sometimes across state lines, without proper oversight and the
potential for being liable for their students’ safety.
Colleges
and universities generally began, and continue to, manage their student-run “club
sports” programs via their Campus Recreation Departments without significant
resources and support but with increasing oversight, and with good reason.
However, the markets speak whether or not universities drive sports programming
on their campuses or whether they are driven by the interest and energy of
students. Especially at large universities, club sports programs that have
existed over time have substantial athlete, alumni and fan support that make them run.
In
the following we will look at how colleges are relating to club sports programs
on their campuses from traditionally more passive involvement to newer and more active
roles in shaping non-NCAA club sports. There are clearly different models and
levels of institutional involvement in club sports, but even amongst the differences
is a common trend of increasing involvement by colleges and universities as well as third party support. Let’s
see some of the models that exist today.
#1 THE OLD CAMPUS REC DEPARTMENT MODEL
Most schools over the
past 30 years have administered their non-NCAA club sports via “Campus Rec
Departments" and most still do today. These Campus Recreation Departments that
are managing intercollegiate club sports are also managing on-campus
recreation and wellness programming like intramurals and on-campus fitness
programming. Institutions with this model sanction their club sports programs,
handle liability issues and distribute limited funding, but in the end, clubs
are still “student-run” in terms of scheduling, fundraising, equipment
purchasing and other operational and administrative tasks.
By nature of maturity,
many of these programs that find themselves under the old “Campus Rec Department
Model” are outgrowing it as clubs age and build alumni loyalty, fan support and
demand to play from student athletes seeking opportunities to play competitive
intercollegiate sports. Occasionally these programs mature to the point that a
university will recognize a program and elevate its status to NCAA or NAIA
level of support and therefore be administered by the NCAA athletic department.
Of note are intercollegiate club
sports programs at the largest NCAA participating universities that do NOT have
an NCAA program in a given sport, but do have a “club” team in that given
sport. These Clubs at so called “power four” conference universities are
beginning to “look and feel” more and more like NCAA programs as they are the
“only game in town” on campus.
#2 THE NCAA DII / NAIA MODEL
There are numerous sports that have limited presence or do not exist at the NCAA Division II level and therefore cannot be
played, or must be played in a limited fashion, without a minimum number of programs for national tournaments.
One key example is ice hockey, which does have a handful of participating
number of NCAA DII schools, but not enough to warrant a national tournament.
The lack of a critical mass of NCAA DII hockey programs acts as a deterrent for
colleges to add NCAA DII hockey, while at the same time is an incentive for
schools that want to have college hockey, to support it in a non-NCAA fashion.
A number of NCAA colleges that play NCAA DII sports, especially in the upper
Midwest where hockey is a "native" winter sport, have deliberately evaded NCAA DII
hockey and actively supported and funded non-NCAA club hockey teams. The club
hockey teams at some of these NCAA DII schools are supported as “varsity” programs for the
purpose of their athletics programming and are also administered by their athletic departments that oversee their other NCAA DII programs. Examples
include Davenport University in Michigan, University of Mary in North Dakota,
University of Jamestown in North Dakota, Maryville University in St Louis and Minot
State (ND).
The same can be said
for colleges and universities that are not NCAA members for their athletics
purposes, but rather, are members of the NAIA. NAIA does not sponsor or
sanction ice hockey. Again, there are NAIA member schools, particularly in the
upper Midwest, that sponsor, fund and support hockey teams through their
athletic departments and are considered “varsity “ for the purpose of their
institution, but are not NCAA or NAIA and therefore compete against other “club” model
programs. Examples of NAIA member schools funding their non-NAIA programs as
“varsity” programs that play other “club” programs include Aquinas College in
Grand Rapids Michigan, University of Michigan – Dearborn, Indiana Tech, and
Midland University in Nebraska.
#3 THE “LIBERTY UNVIVERSITY MODEL”
The most “cutting edge”
of all of the college club sports management models is what I have dubbed “The
Liberty University Model”. Liberty University is a large private
evangelical NCAA DI member with 16,000
students on campus and almost 100,000 students in all academic programs. The
university’s NCAA athletic department sponsors 8 men’s NCAA DI sports and 10
NCAA DI women’s sports.
What makes Liberty
University’s approach to non-NCAA “club” sports unique is that it has created a second
“department" for non-NCAA intercollegiate club sports dubbed the Liberty
University Club Sports Department which is separate and segregated from its
NCAA athletic department and also separate from its “Campus Recreation
Department”. This Club Sports Department looks and feels like its NCAA athletic
department with the difference being that these intercollegiate club sports are
not scholarship athletic programs, but are fully funded and supported athletic
programs. In essence it is like having an NCAA DIII athletic department under
and NCAA DI athletic department in the same university.
The development of the
Club Sports Department began as an interest in liability issues, but changed
into an interest in student-athlete attraction and fan support. The university deliberately does NOT field
intercollegiate club programs that it fields at the NCAA DI level. By doing
this, the university promotes the fact that their intercollegiate club sports
are THE program on campus for a given sport. Many, but not all, of the club
sports are sports that are not NCAA sanctioned sports to begin with such as air
pistol, cycling, racquetball, rock climbing, ultimate frisbee and men’s rowing.
Video on “Liberty Model”:
WINDS OF CHANGE
Colleges and
universities are beginning to recognize this shift toward increasing interest,
maturity and sophistication of club teams. Rather than simply elevating club
programs to NCAA status as they mature, are beginning to find new ways to
support and institutionalize these clubs as is the case with the “Liberty
Model” and “NCAA DII/NAIA Models”. Have
you recognized this trend in college club sports? Do you think “low key” entry
level college club sports still exist and where?
No comments:
Post a Comment