Division 3 Athletics:
Playing a division 3 sports allows an athlete to play at a competitive level and still excel in the class room. Student athlete means student comes first. Division III is the largest of all of the NCAA divisions. In Division III, there are 444 institutions and more than 170,000 student-athletes. In Division III, the emphasis is on the value of competing in sports to the participant. There is less of a focus on generating revenue or creating events for spectators. The rules for Division III are created in order to maintain gender equity and to ensure that universities offer a minimum number of opportunities to all its athletes.
Why participate in division 3 athletics?
Division III sports events are often ignored by the mainstream media, but the student-athlete's passion for the game isn't any less and they are no less knowledgeable about the game.
Division 3 has tough assumptions surrounding it. 'It's not as hard' or 'Less than' division 1 and 2 programs. However, in some aspects, D3 players can be more committed and passionate for their sport. Not only do athletes here take a full course load of classes, get involved in extracurricular and even study abroad, we also attend practice every day, miss social events on game days and manage homework between practicing, eating and sleeping. Academics are first yes, but that just means you have to find a way to balance everything else. Although there's no athletic scholarships given to D3 athletes, it just goes to show how passionate they are about their sport. They are participating simply because they love to play. I knew coming here that I could love the school and the sport rather than having to choose just one. The odds of making sports center are very low and the odds of someone not knowing where my school is or spelling it wrong is very high (and often).
Democracy in Sport:
"Democracy in sport Involves a team guided by a leader where all individuals are involved in the decision-making process to determine what needs to be done and how it should be done. The group's leader has the authority to make the final decision of the group."
For all divisions this is held to be consistently true. However, my experience and other D3 athletes may differ based off my experiences and the space I'm they are in.
Everyone is given a role in the decision making process and also given the opportunity to participate in open discussions and exchange ideas freely and openly.
Does this really benefit teamwork? Should everyone have an equal say and opportunity? Does a stagnant power throughout a team boost performance? Or can it maybe hinder it?
During one case study, Led by researcher Richard Ronay, a professor at the University of Queensland in Australia assigned 138 students into 3 experimental groups. One of three experimental conditions -- primed to feel high in power, low in power, and baseline or control. The teams performance was measured by the groups output. The groups were organized so that they were same-sex teams of three high-power participants and three low-power participants or groups with one high-power, one low-power, and one baseline participant. The results were that groups with power hierarchies were far more productive than teams with participants of either all low power or high power.
SOOO????
So. When there's too many leaders and/or too many followers, group performance can suffer, as members struggle to get a grip on diverse situations. clear power structure and division of labor can reduce group conflicts and improve productivity. Democracy could be a good environment for certain situations/areas, but for sports, it could in fact be detrimental to success.
Playing a division 3 sports allows an athlete to play at a competitive level and still excel in the class room. Student athlete means student comes first. Division III is the largest of all of the NCAA divisions. In Division III, there are 444 institutions and more than 170,000 student-athletes. In Division III, the emphasis is on the value of competing in sports to the participant. There is less of a focus on generating revenue or creating events for spectators. The rules for Division III are created in order to maintain gender equity and to ensure that universities offer a minimum number of opportunities to all its athletes.
Why participate in division 3 athletics?
- Your coaches care about your school work just as much as they value your workouts
- You will have a close knit family on and off the field
- You can participate in extra curricular activities/have a life outside of your sport
- clubs sports, social clubs, community service (big brothers big sisters, relay for life, active minds)
- You won't be excluded to friends just on your sports team
- You have the opportunity to go out on the weekends
- You can take advantage of study abroad, in fact you're encouraged too
- You don't compete for money. Through division 3 you can only receive academic scholarships, there's no pressure on having to win, but rather having fun and working hard in a competitive environment.
Division III sports events are often ignored by the mainstream media, but the student-athlete's passion for the game isn't any less and they are no less knowledgeable about the game.
Division 3 has tough assumptions surrounding it. 'It's not as hard' or 'Less than' division 1 and 2 programs. However, in some aspects, D3 players can be more committed and passionate for their sport. Not only do athletes here take a full course load of classes, get involved in extracurricular and even study abroad, we also attend practice every day, miss social events on game days and manage homework between practicing, eating and sleeping. Academics are first yes, but that just means you have to find a way to balance everything else. Although there's no athletic scholarships given to D3 athletes, it just goes to show how passionate they are about their sport. They are participating simply because they love to play. I knew coming here that I could love the school and the sport rather than having to choose just one. The odds of making sports center are very low and the odds of someone not knowing where my school is or spelling it wrong is very high (and often).
Democracy in Sport:
"Democracy in sport Involves a team guided by a leader where all individuals are involved in the decision-making process to determine what needs to be done and how it should be done. The group's leader has the authority to make the final decision of the group."
For all divisions this is held to be consistently true. However, my experience and other D3 athletes may differ based off my experiences and the space I'm they are in.
Everyone is given a role in the decision making process and also given the opportunity to participate in open discussions and exchange ideas freely and openly.
Does this really benefit teamwork? Should everyone have an equal say and opportunity? Does a stagnant power throughout a team boost performance? Or can it maybe hinder it?
During one case study, Led by researcher Richard Ronay, a professor at the University of Queensland in Australia assigned 138 students into 3 experimental groups. One of three experimental conditions -- primed to feel high in power, low in power, and baseline or control. The teams performance was measured by the groups output. The groups were organized so that they were same-sex teams of three high-power participants and three low-power participants or groups with one high-power, one low-power, and one baseline participant. The results were that groups with power hierarchies were far more productive than teams with participants of either all low power or high power.
SOOO????
So. When there's too many leaders and/or too many followers, group performance can suffer, as members struggle to get a grip on diverse situations. clear power structure and division of labor can reduce group conflicts and improve productivity. Democracy could be a good environment for certain situations/areas, but for sports, it could in fact be detrimental to success.
Example of a good working participative democracy:
St.Thomas University: written by Eric Gill 'What is Democratic/Participative Leadership? How collaboration Can Boost Morale'
"Apple was a successful company from 1976 to 1985, before it almost failed in the mid-1990s. Then it became enormously successful again — precisely because it faltered. In other words, Apple had a vision. Apple lost its vision. Apple regained its vision. That’s rare. In the mid-1990s Gateway, Microsoft, Sun Micro systems and other companies reportedly zeroed in on Apple as an acquisition target. Years later, many of those brands disappeared. Yet Apple survived. Apple survived because Steve Jobs learned how to adapt. He became a democratic/participative leader. Jobs started out as a charismatic/laissez-faire leader, and Apple soared. Then he became an autocratic leader, and Apple’s board of directors requested his resignation.
When he returned to Apple more than 10 years later, Jobs combined several leadership styles and added democratic/participative to his repertoire. He hired other experienced leaders and entrusted them to excel. Jobs encouraged his lead designer Jonathon Ive, and he mentored manufacturing expert Tim Cook, now CEO. He let them make key decisions. That’s why Apple survived." (Gill 1).
This type of democracy was utilized properly and successfully. Other types of democracy can be useful too.
Authoritative: Runs team like a dictator
Each practice has its benefits and downfalls. Depending on the players, program, and coaches, any style could make a team successful if utilized correctly.
St.Thomas University: written by Eric Gill 'What is Democratic/Participative Leadership? How collaboration Can Boost Morale'
"Apple was a successful company from 1976 to 1985, before it almost failed in the mid-1990s. Then it became enormously successful again — precisely because it faltered. In other words, Apple had a vision. Apple lost its vision. Apple regained its vision. That’s rare. In the mid-1990s Gateway, Microsoft, Sun Micro systems and other companies reportedly zeroed in on Apple as an acquisition target. Years later, many of those brands disappeared. Yet Apple survived. Apple survived because Steve Jobs learned how to adapt. He became a democratic/participative leader. Jobs started out as a charismatic/laissez-faire leader, and Apple soared. Then he became an autocratic leader, and Apple’s board of directors requested his resignation.
When he returned to Apple more than 10 years later, Jobs combined several leadership styles and added democratic/participative to his repertoire. He hired other experienced leaders and entrusted them to excel. Jobs encouraged his lead designer Jonathon Ive, and he mentored manufacturing expert Tim Cook, now CEO. He let them make key decisions. That’s why Apple survived." (Gill 1).
This type of democracy was utilized properly and successfully. Other types of democracy can be useful too.
Authoritative: Runs team like a dictator
- Coaches/leaders have ultimate say, teaches discipline
- Gives clear goals for the team to reach
- Offers fast results
- Coach is used as a facilitator, which opens up channels of communication between players and coaches
- It's up to the players
- Emphasis on process rather than outcome
Each practice has its benefits and downfalls. Depending on the players, program, and coaches, any style could make a team successful if utilized correctly.