Fwd: Varsity/Club vs DI/DII
James Carney
Keeping you all in the loop! Don't miss the addition at the very bottom.
From: Carney, James <jca...@piedmont.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 2:25 PM
To: Support <colle...@usacycling.org>; Vanessa Drummond <vdru...@usacycling.org>; Ohlmann, Parker <pohl...@usacycling.org>; Eric Bennett <eben...@usacycling.org>; Erika Lehman <ele...@usacycling.org>; Knott, Kyle <kkn...@usacycling.org>
Subject: Varsity/Club vs DI/DIIHello,
I am writing regarding the division designations within collegiate cycling. I think it is time to go back to what worked before and refer to the two groups of schools as Division I and Division II (DI and DII). Using the terms varsity and club hasn't contributed anything of value and has failed to make a positive impact. I think it is time to end the varsity experiment.
There was an original fear that calling club, “club” would hurt those entities, and it has, without question. The main issue is: what is the real difference between club and varsity programs? The only difference is in the terms used to name those categories. Club and varsity teams race the same events, pay the same entry fees, have the same distances, are promoted by USA Cycling the same, and have access to everything the same. The groups are different in name designation alone. If changing the name of 'Division I' to 'Varsity' had a meaningful impact, we would have more varsity schools by now, but we don’t. Piedmont was the 25th varsity school established in the academic year of 2016-17. Most of those schools were healthier than the 20 varsity schools we have now. We have lost more collegiate racing schools than we have gained over the past eight years. Many of the current varsity schools are struggling. Instead of listening to all of the varsity institutions, it seems that USA Cycling mainly shows interest in listening to the three most prominent programs, the big three (Marian, CMU, and Fort Lewis). It is apparent that Marian, CMU, and Fort Lewis will be healthy in any environment. If we switch back to calling collegiate Division I and Division II, those programs will be 100% fine. They all attended Bentonville even though some objected to a fall postponement for the mountain bike nationals. King University was the only school that boycotted that decision. We should be concerned about why they didn't show. For collegiate cycling’s success, priorities must focus on growth, retention, and participation. In my opinion, the big three have been more concerned with rules and regulations. If we were all in a healthy place and at the size of participation and teams, we would like to be; those should be the priorities. We’re not there.
Returning to Division I and II makes perfect sense for multiple reasons.
- The stigma of calling the lower category “club” is gone. That was damaging to certain programs. The University of Arizona stated this when the name designation first changed. Club has been declining since then.
- Schools with good support but lacking athletic scholarships, like Piedmont, would be racing with whom they should be. We’ve lost too many good schools to the current structure. Mars Hill is an example.
- More prominent schools with a significant population (Colorado State) and schools with a big membership size (Brevard) could be classified as Division I alongside schools with athletic scholarships.
- Any school that wanted to petition to be Division I could, but giving athletic scholarships would be an automatic designation to DI.
- There would be no reason to police varsity anymore. Instead of “playing monopoly” by making rules and regulations to govern, we would return to how it was. Let the schools give whatever they want. To turn away support makes no sense. This unburdens USA Cycling from spending time to manage limits. It has never been done effectively and is a time suck that could be used for better purposes.
- The designation of DI and DII allows all programs to grow and thrive. The incentive would be back. As mentioned previously, the varsity experiment has not delivered any meaningful outcomes. We have failed varsity schools. Many don’t even have club teams anymore. Marian, CMU, and Fort Lewis have stayed the same, and smaller varsity teams struggle and eventually disappear. Many varsity programs do not feel that there is a perk or advantage to being called varsity. That is why Piedmont will drop to either club or DII next year because - we don't see the benefit.
- Going back to DI and DII simplifies everything. The varsity experiment needed a ton of management, and it is evident that USA Cycling isn’t willing to move in that direction. The Collegiate Committee is an acceptable way to govern, but all its members have more extensive jobs. An example is that Kyle has tons of other National Championships to manage. I believed in the varsity potential, but it required a lead who was 100% dedicated to managing collegiate and pounding the pavement to grow schools. That person also needed to communicate with all existing programs to focus on 100% retention. For every school we have had join varsity, we have lost one or two existing programs. This isn’t working, and we haven’t heard or seen any reason to believe that anything, as it stands, will be practical.
We tried. We tried hard for eight years, and it isn’t working. It is best to make changes that will drive fundamental changes - that means looking at what worked (DI and DII) and making adjustments toward meaningful progress. There is no incentive to cave into the big three. I assure you that Marian, CMU, and Fort Lewis (my alma mater) aren’t going anywhere. Those programs were all fine before the experiment. They’ll be fine if we go back to the old format in an effort to help everyone. Lastly, restructuring to Division I and Division II would also get Fort Lewis off the hook. Everyone knows they are charging their membership to be on the cycling team. That isn’t varsity. Readopting the Division I and Division II tiers would allow Fort Lewis to remain top-class (DI) without questioning how they are funded.
I believe that switching back will help team retention immediately and probably help with National's participation. For growth, USA Cycling is going to have to decide whether or not it is going to invest in collegiate. I see that it is part of the Regional Manager position job description, but I haven't experienced those people actively trying to promote collegiate.
Best,
Jame Carney
Head Cycling Coach
Athletic Department
Piedmont University
(c) 520.661.8031
1021 Central Ave, Demorest, GA 30535
From: Carney, James <jca...@piedmont.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 11:33 AM
To: Support <colle...@usacycling.org>; Vanessa Drummond <vdru...@usacycling.org>; Ohlmann, Parker <pohl...@usacycling.org>; Eric Bennett <eben...@usacycling.org>; Erika Lehman <ele...@usacycling.org>; Knott, Kyle <kkn...@usacycling.org>
Subject: Re: Varsity/Club vs DI/DIIThe only thing I might add is the statistic Eric brought up when USA Cycling shifted to the committee governance for collegiate. He pointed out that Collegiate membership is made up of 85% club and 15% varsity. I could be wrong but I think if you took a vote by school, switching back to DI and DII would win in a landslide. At the Bentonville Mountian Bike Nationals, there were 35 club schools and 17 varsity. And the postponement and relocation of the event hurt club participation more then varsity.
Jame Carney
Head Cycling Coach
Athletic Department
Piedmont University
(c) 520.661.8031
1021 Central Ave, Demorest, GA 30535
<Image.jpeg>
James Carney
Jame Carney
Head Cycling Coach
Athletic Department
Piedmont University
(c) 520.661.8031
1021 Central Ave, Demorest, GA 30535
