I have long contended that coaches at the lower collegiate divisions often expend just as much time and energy as their upper-class counterparts. And perhaps somewhat surprisingly, many of these coaches emanate from non-core sports such as tennis, volleyball, swimming, track, and golf. Even when the positions are of a part-time nature, I have seen coaches give enormous commitments to their respective schools.

As a former coach of non-core sports teams at the NCAA Divison I and III levels, plus having consulted and worked with scores of coaches, I bring a unique outlook to this topic. Additionally, having been a Division I athlete gives me further clarity from a player’s perspective.

What I have seen firsthand is how coaches do an excellent job of adapting to whatever circumstances they find themselves in. Even when coaches are faced with limited resources, they find a way to get the job done. However, there are significant contrasts among the three divisions which affect how coaches operate.

One critical area of collegiate athletics where the differences are accentuated is recruiting. Division I and II universities offer athletic scholarships, while Division III schools do not. Coaches at larger schools can target their prospects earlier and have the funds to locate the best student-athletes suitable for their respective programs. At smaller institutions, where budgets are more limited, coaches often have to find cost-efficient ways to recruit.

Especially at the smaller Division III schools with non-core sports, coaches need to sometimes go back to the bare basics when recruiting players. One example is finding qualified student-athletes within the school. This can be accomplished by sending out mass emails to students, placing signs in strategic locations, attending student orientation sessions, and placing notices in the school newspaper.

With non-core sports, coaches generally realize that their teams are not on the same echelon as football, basketball, and baseball. Coaches often have to work with their teams’ being less of a priority within the athletic department. In the Division III classification, where there are fewer teams at a school, the lack of enthusiasm toward non-core sports can be especially frustrating for coaches.

I was fortunate that during my coaching career, I had a few athletic directors who were avid tennis fans, and very supportive of my teams. Terry Small was one athletic director, who always cared about not only our program but every team in the sports department. Another leader, the late Dr. Harold Merritt, came to a number of our matches. A common question he would ask me was, “What is the best we can do for your team?” Unfortunately, this type of support is not the case for many non-core sports programs.  

A key to coaching at any of the three NCAA divisions is knowing the type of athlete you are working with. The student-athlete on a Division I golf team, for example, will be different than one from Division III. At the top level, he likely will be on scholarship, with an impressive resume. The individual also might have aspirations of a golf career after college. 

On the other hand, an athlete on a Division III non-core sports team, even though an accomplished competitor, likely plays the sport for enjoyment, with goals considerably more modest. These student-athletes, often have to fit the team into their busy work, or extracurricular activities.

When coaching my Division III team, I operated far differently than when I was at Division I. Practices were shorter, and I usually worked around the players’ availability. I remember telling the players that even though attendance at practices was important, the actual matches against other schools were the main priority.

I also worked more on a player’s fundamentals when coaching Division III teams, as opposed to the upper levels. Their skills were not as refined, therefore more teaching was required.

As unlikely as it seems, there are also numerous similarities in coaching at the separate divisions. One area of commonality is that the competitive fire is in all athletes regardless of level. It is always more pleasurable to coach an athlete when they are passionate about an activity.

When I was coaching at a Division III school, and looking to hire an assistant, the athletic director searching would ask the applicants, “How important is winning to you?” The only acceptable reply according to him was that “winning was of the utmost importance.” Coaches always need to be aware that results matter, regardless of the level.

Another similarity is there are many aspects of the daily job that are comparable, except at the higher levels, everything is intensified. This pertains to practices, matches, time commitments, travel, and other facets of the program. Plus, players in the three divisions are all student-athletes, with academics at the forefront.

» ALSO SEE: Q&A.D. with MHSAA Executive Director Mark Uyl

NCAA Division II programs are sometimes thought of as being in the middle of the other two levels with their operating guidelines. Coaches often like the balance that Division II athletics offers compared to the other two divisions. There is the benefit of having scholarships to offer, without the added pressure of being at the top echelon. 

At each collegiate division, the coach has to be aware of NCAA rules about recruiting, practices, and academic eligibility. These directives vary depending on the division, as well as the sport. For example, non-core sports will have parameters specific to them, as opposed to football programs. 

Therefore, while coaching at the three division ranks might seem miles apart, there are certainly enough commonalities also. And the bond that ties these coaches together is the passion they have for their respective teams, whatever that level might be.

The post Insights into coaching at all three NCAA divisions appeared first on Coach and Athletic Director.

On a gender basis, girls’ participation increased faster than boys. Wrestling alone is up 250% over the last 10 years. Other sports including lacrosse, swimming, tennis, track, and volleyball all contributed to the uptick in girls’ enrollment. With more opportunities, it would not be surprising if this trend continues.

These numbers are a clear signal that athletic directors have a chance to further develop their non-core sports. These sports often play a secondary role in athletic departments, but some administrators might want to change their outlook.

When the athletic department, school personnel, and alumni show a heightened level of commitment to these less recognized teams, it has a ripple effect. It’s a big deal when the school is fully committed to all of its teams. Sometimes even an adjustment to the infrastructure of the athletic department is necessary, with a renewed prioritizing of certain programs. This can be reflected in an inclusive master plan, with a revised mission statement and goals.   

The commitment from the athletic department and school extends to being present for the lesser-known teams. I’ve heard from numerous coaches that athletic department staff only show up at the end-of-year championships. But when it comes to basketball or football, their presence is everywhere. When the teams who are not in the “spotlight” know that the school supports them in every way, there’s a boost in morale.

A Supportive Environment

An athletic director shows support for their non-core teams by consistently promoting them as valuable entities of the athletic department. This includes letting the coaches of these programs run workshops, camps, and other events. When the athletic department promotes these events, more students become involved, thus helping to promote the sport.

Coaches of these programs also have a responsibility to increase their team’s profile within the school. They need to communicate what their program needs to grow and succeed. When athletic administrators are often not as familiar with non-core sports, it’s up to the coach to bridge this gap. 

Using media and social networks are other means of showing support for a program’s non-core sports. Too often, a low-profile team doesn’t receive its due credit for a successful season. Social media is an excellent opportunity to reach the community. 

This type of acknowledgment also applies to awards ceremonies and similar events. Generally, students want to play on a team that gets recognition. I can vividly remember when I was coaching, my undefeated No. 1 tennis player did not win a top award for his achievements. He went over to the athletic director, and politely asked why he was not chosen for this particular honor. The athletic director bluntly stated that basketball was held in higher esteem at the school, and that carried more weight. While the athletic director was honest, this is an attitude that needs to change.

Athletic directors also must keep their non-core sports in mind when it comes to funding. These teams usually are in the lower tier of funding, while sports like football get the largest share of capital because of their popularity and sheer numbers. Plus, they frequently bring in significant revenue. But, with the rising nature of these other sports, finding creative methods to increase their budgets demonstrates a school’s commitment to every team. This is where the athletic director and coach need to explore joint fundraising solutions.

With this adjusted approach, there’s an understanding that non-core sports offer advantages to student-athletes. A prime example is their inclusive nature. These sports often have no-cut teams, which gives students an opportunity to participate when they otherwise might not have a chance. Oftentimes, students don’t bother to try out, fearing they might be cut. With more schools offering sports that are open to all, students are encouraged to participate. 

Lifetime Benefits 

Non-core sports offer additional benefits to student-athletes, one of which is lifetime participation. Tennis, volleyball, and golf are examples of sports that students can play for several years. Chris Hagman, president of Atlantic Recreation, has worked with athletic directors for many years, and he feels strongly that these sports offer many lasting advantages to students. 

“These non-core sports offer the advantage of lifetime fitness benefits, which is not talked about enough, and gives students the opportunity to succeed, which will carry over into their adult lives,” he said.

One area to look for guidance is in youth sports. According to The Aspen Institute, participation in sports for kids 6 to 12 has declined from 45% in 2008 to 38% in 2018. The reasons range from increasing costs to sport specialization. Many observers are worried that these levels have finally caught up to high school sports.

» ALSO SEE: Building a Dynamic Athletic Program Leadership

Because of this, athletic administrators would be wise to assimilate their events into the local youth community, with their programs becoming more kid-friendly. Target marketing to youngsters and their parents is a good start. Almost every local region already has a solid infrastructure in place, with a diverse range of youth leagues. When athletic departments make it a priority to involve themselves in these organizations on a reciprocal basis, it enhances all programs involved.  

Despite the declining participation numbers of certain prominent sports, they are still very popular and will be for a long time. But there’s no denying that there are many alternatives available for all students who would like to be involved in varsity sports. With encouragement and support from athletic departments, there is room enough for these teams to continue their rise in popularity.

Bruce Knittle is a former sports camp owner, Hall of Fame inducted coach, and previously ran a sports consulting company specializing in working with athletic directors and coaches.

The post Cultivating the Non-Core Sports appeared first on Coach and Athletic Director.