The NCAA News - News & Features

Division III seeks reactions to championship subdivision

At a meeting May 8, the task force discussed models for the division's championship structure that would provide a better ratio of participation to member institutions and bring the championships in line with the division's composition.

Documents sent to chief executive officers at Division III institutions identify fundamental issues related to the subdivision of championships, provide a summary of the models and ask for feedback. The institutions are being asked to respond to the models from the institution's perspective and not the perspective of the individual completing the form. Responses are requested by June 3 to allow the task force to review them at a meeting June 8 in Marco Island, Florida.

All of the subdivision models assume enhancement of Division III championships by increasing funding and improving participation ratios. In team sports, a ratio of between eight members to one championship slot and 12 members to one slot is the goal. In individual championships, a ratio ranging from 16:1 to 24:1 is the target.

The championships models address only team sports with 200 or more sponsoring institutions -- baseball, men's and women's basketball, football, men's and women's soccer, women's softball, and women's volleyball -- because those are the sports in which the ratio situation is most acute. Changes in other team and individual sports may be studied later.

Responses to a survey at the 1996 NCAA Convention indicated that about 59 percent of the respondents favored in principle some kind of subdivision of the Division III membership for championships purposes.

The feedback document will provide basic principles and concepts that the task force is using as it considers championships issues. These principles and concepts include:

* Comparable championships-access ratios of between 1:8 and 1:12 in all team sports.

* Proportional postseason participation opportunities for all Division III student-athletes.

* Grouping of comparable institutions in championships competition.

* Minimization of missed class time.

* Fiscal prudence.

The task force is looking for reactions to the proposed models -- including recommendations to keep a proposal intact or to use parts of different models to construct a new model.

Among fundamental issues the task force believes must be resolved in constructing an acceptable model are the following:

* Public vs. private institutions. Because of disparate resources and missions, should a separate subdivision be established for public institutions?

* Enrollment.

* Size of the particular sports program.

* Geographical location.

* Conference slots. What happens to automatic bids in a subdivided championship?

Another issue to be resolved should the membership support subdividing championships is whether championship play should end with the subdivision championship or whether the subdivision champions should play for a Division III championship.

Throughout the discussions, academic integrity remains of paramount importance in choosing a championships structure.

The Division III subcommittee of the NCAA Presidents Commission has indicated that no championship should extend more than three weekends for team sports. In individual championships, the subcommittee has urged that the task force be sensitive to the impact of consecutive days of championships competition on student-athletes.

Provisional membership

Another aspect of the championships discussion is the continuting growth in Division III membership.

The task force agreed to recommend proposed legislation for the 1997 Convention that would extend the current provisional-membership period from three years to four, effective for institutions that join the Association as provisional members on or after August 1, 1997. A moratorium on new members will continue until all restructuring legislation is in effect, which could be as early as August 1, 1997.

The task force agreed that a review process for new provisional Division III members should include completion of a form addressing approximately 10 critical questions, for use in judging whether an institution is ready for full membership.

The task force noted that the form required by the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act could be used to help fulfill the review part of provisional membership.

Other membership issues

In other membership matters, the task force discussed an increase in Division III membership dues but discarded the idea as inappropriate at this time.

The task force, however, did recommend an increase in sports-sponsorship requirements from four men's and women's varsity intercollegiate sports to five men's and women's sports. Under the proposal, sponsorship of at least three team sports for each gender would be required. The effective date for that legislation would be August 1, 2001, to give institutions four years to comply.

The task force also recommended that a waiver mechanism be established to enable institutions to receive a waiver of the new sports-sponsorship requirements based on objective criteria, such as Title IX implications and student-body demographics.

Governance proposals

In governance matters, the task force noted its desire that Division III be a leader in student-athlete participation in Association governance and recommended to the Transtition Oversight Committee that two Division III members of the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (one female and one male) be included as voting members of the Division III Management Council.

The addition of the student-athletes would increase the size of the Management Council from 17 to 19 members.

Student-athletes named to the council would be required to have at least one year of experience on the student-athlete committee and would be appointed on an annual basis. To provide opportunities to more student-athletes, student-athlete representatives would be limited to two years on the council.

The task force also:

* Recommended that athletics administrators who are appointed to a sports committee with championships administration responsibilities in a team or individual sport should not be coaches in that sport. Also, it recommended that the percentage of athletics administrators required to serve on these committees be increased from 25 percent to 50 percent in individual sports, to make composition consistent with that required in team sports. The task force noted that the need for technical expertise of coaches on these committees can be remedied by using coaches on a consulting basis to assist the committee on technical issues related to that sport.

* Agreed to sponsor legislation to specify that a representative on the Management Council whose term has expired shall not be replaced by a representative from the same conference or institution for one year.

* Revised a draft of proposed legislation to establish a standing Division III nominating committee, in order to place fewer members of the Management Council on the committee. The proposed composition of the eight-member committee includes four former NCAA officers or Council members (one of whom would serve as chair), one Management Council representative, and one chief executive officer who currently serves or previously has served on the Presidents Council or Management Council.

* Agreed in concept to establish a standing budget committee to handle all Division III budgetary issues. The committee would report to the Management Council. Championships Committee recommendations would be forwarded to the budget committee, which in turn would present recommendations to the Management Council.

All budget recommendations ultimately would be forwarded to the Division III Presidents Council for final consideration.