By Michael Vienna

In March, the NCAA officially ended its discussion of creating a division or subdivision to address the growth of Division III, instead recommending a more broad-based approach in responding to the Association's continuing growth. Michael Vienna, Athletic Director at Salisbury University, shares his take on the discussion, including some ideas for moving forward.

On March 28th you could almost hear a collective sigh of relief from numerous NCAA Division III institutions and conferences when the NCAA announced that it was ending the discussion of restructuring the division. Instead, the Division III Working Group on Membership Issues recommended the Association adopt a more broad-based approach to pending NCAA membership growth.

Advertisement

During the recent national convention in January there was considerable opposition to restructuring Division III and very little public support. However, there was a growing sense the restructuring process was well on its way, led by some silent power brokers. Many in attendance left feeling that despite strong opposition, the restructuring train had left the station and there would be a vote at the 2009 convention.

It is now evident that while there may have been institutions and conferences interested a new structure, the vast majority of Division III did not favor such a change. While the results of the survey will not be made public until after April 9, it was reported the survey results expressed a strong opposition similar to what was heard at the January convention. As a result of apparent opposition in the survey, the recent announcement was made to end future discussions of restructuring Division III.

Discussions at the convention, the membership survey, and the numerous position statements written by conferences, institutions, and individual administrators and presidents have provided a great example of membership activism and how members decide the direction of the division and Association. This topic created the most political activism on a Division III topic in recent memory—possibly the most in the history of the division. People who were opposed to restructuring and let their feelings be known on this important topic should receive a pat on the back for their efforts.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the past few months has been the notion that NCAA membership growth is an issue for the entire Association and the restructuring discussions for Division III made it feel as though the Association’s growth could best be handled by splitting up Division III. Unfortunately, the idea that membership growth was the reason to create a new division may have been a result of those who would like an alternative to Division III and saw an opportunity to foster change by hanging their hat on membership growth concerns.

The Division III Working Group on Membership Issues recommendation should be applauded, as should the overall efforts of the working group. Regardless of which side of the issue the committee members were on, they are all to be commended for presiding over such an important topic for the future of our division and Association.

The decision sends a strong message that the NCAA is an association of its member institutions and not just an office of rule makers in Indianapolis. All too often, the general public and even member institutions speak as though the NCAA is simply a faceless bureaucratic organization in Indianapolis. In actuality, it is a sum of its parts, and the member institutions control its direction.

Where do we go now? Obviously, there needs to be a stronger approach on how anticipated membership growth will affect the entire Association. As we move forward there needs to be a collegial approach to help all levels of the Association deal with growth, with a commitment that all of us need to share the impact these future members will bring to our Association.

If we are to remain an open Association to four-year colleges, we may want to consider maintaining the current membership ratio that exists across the divisions. Including provisional members, there are currently 1,067 NCAA institutions across all three divisions (330 in D-I, 293 in D-II, and 444 in D-III). Thus, the current percentage of membership amongst the three divisions (including provisional members) is:
• D-I: 31 percent
• D-II: 27 percent
• D-III: 42 percent

One possible solution would be to mandate that once a division increases by a percentage point in overall Association membership, membership is then closed to new institutions (unless that division desires to continue adding new members). When one division has increased by a percentage point, the only option open for potential candidate institutions would be to join one of the two remaining divisions. Under this approach, concerns of increased membership growth would be shared equally across all divisions.

The recent restructuring debate also included attempts to address the philosophical differences that exist within a division. For example, if some Division III members are still displeased with division affiliation based upon their fundamental philosophical differences regarding the role athletics should play on campus, those schools need to voice their concerns and how they relate to any future restructuring efforts. The Working Group will provide a forum for discussing growth-related concerns during a series of Division III Town Hall meetings scheduled to begin in May. The Town Hall meetings are on May 8 in Indianapolis, May 19 in Boston, and June 2 in San Antonio.

Part of the failure of the recent restructuring drive was due to a lack of a defined structure of what the new division would look like. If there's going to be a new division, it needs to be significantly different than the existing model. Some feel a new model, should be one where student-athletes are more involved activities outside of athletics. To thoroughly investigate this idea, members should explore a structure that incorporates the following principles: No national championship playoffs; higher admissions standards than currently legislated in Divisions I and II; no freshman eligibility for practice or contests; no non-traditional practices or contests; prohibiting off-campus recruiting or official visits; significant reduction of playing and practice seasons to include no contests during the week to eliminate missed class time, etc.

Of course, any conference can institute (and many do) a more restrictive philosophy than the overall division to stage a majority of their contests against those with similar restrictive philosophies. This can continue to be a viable option for those institutions and conferences that prefer a more restrictive approach than that currently available to all divisional members.

There has also been speculation one of the reasons there was a push for restructuring was there were many schools who wanted to affiliate with more “like minded institutions.” If this is the case and continues to be so in the future, those desiring a more homogeneous affiliation should be very clear what “type” of school they are most comfortable competing against.

Interestingly enough, one of the significant themes expressed by many who were opposed to restructuring was a philosophy many institutions actively promote on our own campuses: the value of diversity. Many people indicated that one of the strengths of our division is the diversity amongst institutions while holding true to the philosophy of not relying on athletic scholarships and by maintaining a balance between athletics and academics.

The next step is for the Division III membership to put aside differences created during this recent debate and put our energies into continuing to make Division III the best place to ensure our athletes are students first. If there are those who still feel the differences are too significant for them to remain in the division, the lesson learned is to clearly define what a new division will look like and propose new legislation to meet that goal.