The NCAA News - News & Features

Bracket expansion urged in III

Subdividing to be discussed further

Enhance the Division III championships through bracket expansions, but continue to study the possibilities of subdividing or subgrouping.

That is the recommendation to the NCAA Presidents Commission from the Division III Task Force to Review the NCAA Membership Structure.

Meeting June 8 in Marco Island, Florida, the task force reviewed results of a survey sent in May to all Division III member institutions soliciting input on the direction of Division III championships under a restructured Association.

The responses from 243 institutions and conferences were reviewed by the task force but were not the sole basis for the recommendations. The recommendations are a result of the combined thoughts of the task force membership, which includes representatives of Division III's various institutional constituencies (public/private, large enrollment/small enrollment, larger sports sponsorship/smaller sports sponsorship).

The task force noted that the survey results represent significant information that may help to frame the direction of deliberations regarding the Division III championships structure. Complete survey results will be published in a future edition of The NCAA News.

The survey included championships "Model A," which was the expansion concept, and five additional models (B-F) that proposed various ways to subdivide or subgroup the championships over and above the basic enhancements described in Model A.

Survey results indicated some possible confusion about the distinction between subdividing and subgrouping.

Subdividing involves multiple national champions, one in each subdivision. Subgrouping has a single national champion resulting from the champion of a subgroup playing another subgroup champion until a national champion is determined.

Models B through F present different ways to structure the championships -- two subdivision models (B and C) and three subgrouping models (D, E and F). The models were developed as the result of a request from the Division III subcommittee of the Presidents Commission that the task force explore all relevant alternatives for subdividing or subgrouping before forwarding a recommendation.

The task force has discussed whether legislatively creating subdivisions or the formal establishment of subgroups for postseason play would provide Division III members with greater competitive equity in championship competition. 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 access issues are considered most acute.

The proposed models addressed in the survey are:

* Model A: Expands the current Division III championship structure by increasing bracket sizes in designated sports but does not subdivide or divide the membership into subgroups; rather it would maintain the current Division III championships structure.

* Model B: Divides the Division III membership into two subdivisions based on sports sponsorship and undergraduate enrollment. Each subdivision would conduct its own championship.

* Model C: Also divides the Division III membership into two subdivisions with separate national championships. Subdivisions would be created by using additional enrollment factors.

* Model D: Divides Division III into four geographical regions of equal size. Each region is divided into four groups, which are defined using geography and an enrollment/sports sponsorship index. Each subgroup would determine a champion that would vie for the regional championship. The regional champions would play for the national championship.

* Model E: Divides Division III into four groups for preliminary rounds. One group is composed of all public institutions, and the remaining three groups are made up of all private institutions divided somewhat evenly by geographical zones. Again, each subgroup would determine a champion which in turn would play for the national championship.

* Model F: Provides for four subdivision champions, as well as an overall Division III champion. The subdivisions are: institutions with less than eight men's and eight women's sports (Subdivision AAAA); state-funded institutions (Subdivision AAA); institutions with eight or more men's sports and eight or more women's sports with full-time undergraduate enrollments of 1,600 or less (Subdivision AA); and institutions with eight or more men's sports and eight or more women's sports with full-time undergraduate enrollments of 1,600 or more (Subdivision A).

The task force is forwarding all of the championships models to the Commission for review and comment, consistent with the Commission's March directive. However, the task force is recommending that the Commission not sponsor proposed legislation in this area for the 1997 NCAA Convention.

To better educate the Division III membership and achieve a stronger consensus and direction from the membership, the task force recommends that it work with the Commission to present the models as part of a discussion forum at the Convention. The task force also suggested a series of regional discussion forums in September or October to allow more input.

Survey results indicated that while the membership appears to support the concept of subdividing or subgrouping for championships (65.4 percent desirable vs. 23.5 percent undesirable), no specific model appeared to be clearly favored.

The task force cited several additional reasons for its recommendation to continue discussion on the specific models:

* While there is support for the concept of retaining a single national championship in the eight team sports, confusion exists regarding the concept of subdivision (multiple national championships) vs. subgrouping (single national champion).

* Implications of subdividing or subgrouping, such as the effect on the Division III governance structure and national office staffing and how the creation of such groups would affect the "balance of power" between Division III and Divisions I and II in the restructured Association need to be studied.

* Short-term and long-term growth trends in Division III need to be better defined. Division III legislative proposals affecting membership (increasing provisional membership from three to four years, increased sports sponsorship requirements) may affect the division's growth.

* The financial implications of subdividing/subgrouping (bracket sizes, travel and per diem expenses) need to be better defined for many of the models.

* Applying the concepts of subdivision or subgrouping to other team sports and individual sports not currently in the championships models needs to be considered in detail.

* The Division III Championships Committee and sports committees need to review and possibly improve championships selection criteria in all sports and need time to assess the effects of legislation proposed by the task force to preclude representatives from the same institution or conference from replacing outgoing members on sports committees for at least one year.

* Additional input and discussion is needed on the concept of conference automatic qualification for championships. The survey indicated 71.6 percent of respondents considered this concept desirable.

* The implication of transfer legislation proposed by the Division III Steering Committee of the NCAA Council on championships should be clarified.

* The task force recognizes that the membership can sponsor legislation to create championships subdivisions and subgroups if it desires for the 1997 Convention.