Financial Aid Task Force April 2019
• • • • • • • • •
Kent Henning (Chair), President, Grand View University, IA Paul Ague, President, San Diego Christian College, CA Amy Bragg Carey, President, Friends University, KS Rob Cashell, Commissioner, Cascade Collegiate Conference Mark DeMichael, AD, Indiana Wesleyan University Tim Faltyn, President, Oklahoma Panhandle State University Arvid Johnson, President, University of St. Francis, IL Rusty Kennedy, VP of Admissions and Athletics, Midway University, KY Roderick Smothers, President, Philander Smith College, AR 2
Task Force Guiding Principles 1. Promote parity or balance in competition 2. Enhance the institution’s ability to attract and retain quality students 3. Create advantages for the NAIA when compared to NCAA DII or DIII 4. Simplify and make more transparent the definition of countable aid 5. Not limit the number of athletes members can enroll in a particular sport 3
Coordination Financial Aid Task Force Do we need to modify our regulation of athletic aid?
Return on Athletics Will use data to help members make informed decisions for their institutions.
4
Examination of Factors Promote Competitive Balance
Attract & Retain
Countable Create Aid Easy & advantage over DII/DIII Transparent
Not Limit Rosters
Awards Prior to Academic Exemptions Awards After Academic Exemptions Roster Size/JV Various Tuition Types Multisport Athletes
5
Competitive Advantage • Awards prior to academic exemptions • Awards after academic exemptions • Roster size
6
FA Awards Prior to Exemptions – Scatter Plot 2017-18 Men’s Soccer (Post-season final site and rank)
Upper Limit Average
9
FA Awards After Exemptions – Scatter Plot 2017-18 Men’s Soccer (Post-season final site and rank) Upper Limit
Average
10
FA Awards Prior to Exemptions – Scatter Plot 2017-18 Women’s Soccer (Post-season final site and rank)
Upper Limit Average
11
FA Awards After Exemptions – Scatter Plot 2017-18 Women’s Soccer (Post-season final site and rank) Upper Limit
Average
12
FA Awards Prior to Exemptions – Scatter Plot 2017-18 Women’s Volleyball (Post-season final site and rank)
Upper Limit Average
13
FA Awards After Exemptions – Scatter Plot 2017-18 Women’s Volleyball (Post-season final site and rank) Upper Limit
Average
14
FA Awards Prior to Exemptions – Scatter Plot 2017-18 Football (Post-season final site and rank)
Average Upper Limit
15
FA Awards After Exemptions – Scatter Plot 2017-18 Football (Post-season final site and rank) Upper Limit
Average
16
FA Awards After Exemptions & Competitive Success After Exemptions
After Exemptions
R Value
R Squared
R Value
R Squared
Football
-0.01
0.0001
Baseball
-0.28
0.0784
(M) Soccer
-0.28
0.0784
(M) DI BBALL
-0.39
0.1521
(W) Soccer
-0.24
0.0576
(M) DII BBALL
0.17
0.0289
(W) Volleyball
-0.10
0.0100
(M) Lacrosse
-0.50
0.2500
Softball
0.03
0.0009
(W) DI BBALL
-0.34
0.1156
(W) Lacrosse
-0.10
0.0100
(W) DII BBALL
0.03
0.0009
(M) Volleyball
-0.24
0.0576
(M) Wrestling
-0.44
0.1936
18
Frequency in Top 20 over Past 5 Years 2017-18 Women’s Soccer
Number of Appearances in Top 20 over last 5 Years
Institutions Meeting this Criteria
1
24
2
13
3
8
4
4
5
2
Total Unique Schools
51
19
Frequency in Top 20 over Past 5 Years 2017-18 Football
Number of Appearances in Top 20 over last 5 Years
Institutions Meeting this Criteria
1
20
2
13
3
5
4
6
5
3
Total Unique Schools
47
20
Conclusion • Summary of R-squared data showed no reliable linkage. • No dynastic effect so longitudinal data wasn’t necessary. • Data indicates that the number of scholarships has minimal impact on competitive advantage. 21
Examination of Factors: Exemptions Promote Competitive Balance
Attract & Retain
Countable Create Aid Easy & advantage over DII/DIII Transparent
Not Limit Rosters
Awards Prior to Academic Exemptions Awards After Academic Exemptions Roster Size/JV Various Tuition Types Multisport Athletes
22
Conclusion • Data showed some increase in number of exemptions • No definitive conclusion as to why • More discussion/input from membership welcome 25
Examination of Factors: Scholarships Promote Competitive Balance
Attract & Retain
Countable Create Aid Easy & advantage over DII/DIII Transparent
Not Limit Rosters
Awards Prior to Academic Exemptions Awards After Academic Exemptions Roster Size/JV Various Tuition Types Multisport Athletes
26
Scholarships Frequency Distribution
Women’s Volleyball, Aid Awards Prior to Exemption (2017-18) 2012-13 41.3%
58.8% 32.5%
24.6% 26.3%
16.6%
28
FA Awards Prior to Exemptions 2017-18 Women’s Volleyball
Number of Financial Awards
9 8
7.83
8.28
7.98
7.95
4.68
4.6
4.63
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
8.03
7 6 5
5.05
4.1
4 3
2013/14
25th Percentile
50th Percentile
75th Percentile
2017/18
Average
29
FA Awards After Exemptions 2017-18 Women’s Volleyball
6
Number of Financial Awards
5.5 5 4.5
4.39
4.67
4.41
4.44 4.01
4 3.5 3 2.5
2.04
2.08
2.16
2.22
2.12
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2 1.5 1
25th Percentile
50th Percentile
75th Percentile
Average 30
FA Award Dollars Prior to Exemption Women’s Volleyball (2017-18)
Financial Award Dollars Prior to Exemptions (W) Volleyball
Financial Award Dollars
$350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $-
2013/14 25th Percentile
2014/15 50th Percentile
2015/16 75th Percentile
2016/17
2017/18 Average
31
Conclusion • Institutions are making their own decisions and are not all awarding the maximum amount. • The trend shows increase in longitudinal spending on aid.
32
Examination of Factors: Roster Size, Comp. Advantage Promote Competitive Balance
Attract & Retain
Countable Create Aid Easy & advantage over DII/DIII Transparent
Not Limit Rosters
Awards Prior to Academic Exemptions Awards After Academic Exemptions Roster Size/JV Various Tuition Types Multisport Athletes
33
Correlation Coefficient (R) for Scatterplot Trend Lines Roster Size: On Squad R Value
R Squared
Football
-0.27
0.0729
(M) Soccer
-0.31
(W) Soccer
Roster Size: On Squad R Value
R Squared
Baseball
-0.35
0.1225
0.0961
(M) DI BBALL
-0.14
0.0196
-0.36
0.1296
(M) DII BBALL
0.03
0.0009
(W) Volleyball
-0.10
0.0100
(M) Lacrosse
-0.61
0.3721
Softball
-0.02
0.0004
(W) DI BBALL
-0.08
0.0064
(W) Lacrosse
-0.40
0.1600
(W) DII BBALL
-0.04
0.0016
(M) Volleyball
-0.39
0.1521
(M) Wrestling
-0.27
0.0729
34
Effect of Roster Size/JV on Competitive Advantage • Weak data in this area • Data does not show reliable correlation • General consensus is that institutions should be free to execute their own strategies
35
Conclusion • No change should be made based on the current data • Possible further study should be part of Return on AthleticsTM
36
Comparison of Upper Limits to DII Baseball Basketball Competitive Cheer Competitive Dance Cross Country* Football Golf Lacrosse Track & Field* Soccer Softball Swim/Dive Tennis Volleyball Wrestling
12 8 12 10 5 24 5 12 12 12 10 8 5 8 10
9 10
12.6 36 3.6(M) 5.4(W) 10.8(M) 9.9(W) 12.6 9(M) 9.9 (W) 7.2. 8.1 4.5(M) 6(W) 4.5(M) 8(W) 9
*DII combines track and XC. 37
Upper Limits vs. Actual Averages Baseball Basketball* Competitive Cheer Competitive Dance Cross Country Football Golf Lacrosse Outdoor Track & Field Soccer Softball Swim/Dive Tennis Volleyball Wrestling
12 8 12 10 5 24 5 12 12 12 10 8 5 8 10
Ave. Prior to Exemptions
Ave. After Exemptions
11.1
7.95
5.25 3.6 1.7(M) / 1.74(W) 24.51 3.22(M) / 2.93(W) 7.86(M) / 7.37(W) 7.65(M) / 7.06(W) 9.83(M) / 9.2(W) 7.75 4.95(M) / 5.22(W) 3.92(M) / 3.57(W) 5.6(M) / 6.31(W) 6.48
3.26 1.72 .97(M) / .77(W) 19.26 2(M) / 1.38(W) 6.04(M) / 3.94(W) 5.05(M) / 3.59(W) 6.78(M) / 5.01(W) 4.14 2.89(M) / 2.2(W) 2.31(M) / 1.64(W) 3.9 (M) / 3.07(W) 5.03
*Unknown due to combining divisions 38
Football Scholarships • Received proposal from football coaches • 24 vs. 36 scholarships (NCAA DII) • Differences in data • More discussion/input from membership welcome
39
Task Force Conclusions to Date No changes needed as a result of institutions gaining a competitive advantage through the use of: • The number of athletic awards (prior to and/or after exemptions) • Roster size (which also should be an institution’s decision) Overall, our upper limits as compared to NCAA DII seem appropriate • Football warrants further study, discussion • Outsiders’ views (perception vs. reality) are worth consideration
41
Task Force Work in Progress • • • • •
Exemptions warrant further study and discussion related to simplicity and transparency Differentiated tuition needs further study Task force hasn’t looked at multi-sport athletes yet, but numbers are small Football’s situation raises questions to consider and coaches’ proposals need more dialog Where are there other “hot spots?”
42
Examination of Factors Promote Competitive Balance
Attract & Retain
Countable Create Aid Easy & advantage over DII/DIII Transparent
Not Limit Rosters
Awards Prior to Academic Exemptions Awards After Academic Exemptions Roster Size/JV Various Tuition Types Multisport Athletes
43
Questions?
44 44