It's hard to get 422 people to agree on almost anything, so when more than 80 percent of NCAA Division III members said this spring they were opposed to splitting into two divisions, discussions of such a change came to a screeching halt. What continues, however, is the debate over the issues that led to calls for restructuring the NCAA's largest division in the first place.
The idea of splitting Division III gained steam a few years ago as it exceeded 400 members. Some of the concerns were practical. For example, a number of championships would either have to grow beyond 64 teams or exceed the NCAA guideline of one postseason berth for every 6.5 teams. It was also getting more and more difficult to achieve consensus on hot button legislative issues such as redshirting, season lengths, and activity limits during non-traditional seasons.
A working group on NCAA membership issues was developing models for a possible split of Division III, but stopped once the results of a Division III survey were reviewed. More than 60 percent of schools said they "strongly supported" the current structure and another 20 percent said they supported it. The idea of creating a new division or sub-division was supported or strongly supported by only 15 percent of the members. The survey response rate was 96 percent.
"I think the survey shows there is a willingness to work through existing issues as a Division and that the membership feels structural change was a more drastic solution than was necessary," says Dan Dutcher, NCAA Division III Vice President. "Some of the factors that were cited in opposing restructuring were the possible effects that a new structure would have on enrollment and recruiting as well as existing conferences."
But as it's often said, the devil is in the details. While the Division III membership generally agrees on remaining together, they also disagree on exactly how to implement the Division III philosophy. "We know there is widespread buy-in of the Division III philosophy," Dutcher says, "but when you drill down, it doesn't take very long to recognize there are differing interpretations of what that philosophy means in practice."
The NCAA held three town hall-style meetings late in the spring, in which athletic administrators and coaches shared their feelings about the state of Division III and the challenges it faces. Dutcher says the NCAA will write a series of white papers based on the meetings, which will be reviewed by the Presidents Council and then circulated among the entire Division III membership in the fall.
The issues driving the most discussion are familiar ones for Division III. The length of playing seasons and the role of non-traditional seasons have been legislative initiatives before, but some schools feel the proper balance has not yet been found. There is also some support for allowing redshirting. And financial aid has generated much discussion, especially over the possibility of allowing athletic experience to count toward leadership scholarships offered by some schools.
Currently, there are two proposals slated for the 2009 Convention that deal with these issues. One would allow athletes in certain sports to participate in a contest in the nontraditional season, while the other seeks to specify Aug. 15 as the first practice date for several fall sports.
A membership moratorium ended last year, and Division III could soon see an influx of new members, possibly as many as 50 by 2020. Despite the growth, Dutcher feels the logistical concerns of operating championships for more than 450 schools will be manageable.
"We'll have to adjust our access ratios over the next 12 years as we continue to grow," he says. "In the survey, schools indicated they didnít want to increase the tournament fields or reduce the number of automatic qualifiers for conference champions. As a result, we'll see a decrease in the number of at-large bids."
The NCAA also wants to make sure that schools are in Division III for the right reasons. "Division III membership might look attractive to some schools financially because it doesn't allow athletic scholarships," Dutcher says. "But we've found that in certain situations, the small scholarship model of Division II may actually be more cost effective in terms of enrollment and retention of students. We want institutions to be members of Division III because they're committed to the philosophy behind it, not simply because they believe it is most cost-effective."