Financial Aid Task Force - 2019 Convention presentation

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