Societies have struggled with the concept of amateurism since the fifth century B.C., and the NCAA has wrestled with this difficult notion since its inception in 1906. More recently, all three divisions in the NCAA have again engaged this issue.

The Division I Subcommittee on Amateurism and Agents has been working on this problem for three years. The Division II Amateurism Project Team also has been reviewing this same issue since January 1999. And finally, Division III formed its own Amateurism Task Force in November 1999. The Division III task force has met once, held several telephone conference calls and provided an educational information session to the Division III membership at the 2000 Convention.

H.L. Mencken once declared that, "For every complex problem, there is a simple solution ... and it is always wrong."

This centuries-old idea of amateurism -- founded in now outdated notions of class distinction and privilege -- is, indeed, a complex problem and there is no simple solution for the issues it raises for the administration of NCAA intercollegiate sports -- particularly at the Division III level. Consequently, the Division III task force is attempting to put these issues before the membership for its consideration.

We will need input to guide any eventual recommendations the task force makes -- even if it is to recommend no change at all.

Division III has taken up the issue for five reasons:

1. Division III has established as one of its key initiatives the deregulation of NCAA rules in an effort to enhance student-athlete welfare. Another Division III committee has been working hard on deregulation issues and the Division III task force's work grows, in part, from that deregulation effort.

2. Amateurism rules lack clarity, consistency and common sense. We have -- in what is often our usual manner -- created a legislative monster with an attempted definition of amateurism and then have gone on to list 10 different exceptions to that definition in Bylaw 12.

3. The Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement that must most often

decipher our amateurism rules has long felt that some of the sanctions dictated by our rules are too harsh and, therefore, contrary to the concept of general student-athlete welfare. For example, a prospective student-athlete who signs a baseball contract and tries out for a professional team for two days without ever receiving any pay is forever banned from NCAA competition. While a prospective student-athlete who has received some kind of pay or prize money is granted NCAA eligibility if he or she repays the prize money and if there was no "intent" to professionalize (to devine the "intent to professionalize" is an almost impossible task for the committee members).

4. We have, perhaps, bitten off too much and are attempting to monitor the pre-enrollment activities of prospects and organizations all over the world in the time before those prospects actually enroll at NCAA institutions. Might we be better served by insisting upon NCAA standards of conduct -- whatever we deem them to be -- for those students actually enrolled in our institutions rather than concerning ourselves with the activities of prospects in every imaginable corner of the world before they enroll in our colleges and universities?

5. Divisions I and II are contemplating possible radical changes to their division amateurism rules and real politic dictates that Division III should monitor and assess any impact those changes might have on Division III -- whether or not we eventually decide to change any of our rules in this area.

Finally, in light of all of the above, the task force felt that it was important for the Division III membership to step back and reconsider this issue in its broadest terms and attempt -- in the end -- to do what is just and right for Division III and our own unique approach to intercollegiate competition in higher education.

In struggling through the thicket of amateurism issues, the task force has established four simple core values to guide us in our consideration of possible future recommendations:

* Clarity, common sense and consistency of rules.

* Student-athlete welfare.

* Competitive fairness.

* Consistency with the Division III philosophy.

Moreover, it cannot be restated too often: our consideration, for the moment, applies only to prospective student-athletes -- not currently enrolled student-athletes. That is to say, we are looking at the rules as they apply to prospective students before they enroll at NCAA institutions. At some later date, the task force will review amateurism rules for enrolled college students to determine if there is any need for change. However, the general sense of the task force is that the current amateurism should remain in place for enrolled student-athletes.

Thus far, the task force has considered five areas that the task force believes are in need of further analysis:

* Acceptance of prize money, expenses, educational stipends and salaries.

* Signing a professional contract.

* Entering the professional draft.

* Competing with professional athletes.

* Establish a seasons-of-competition rule that might address issues of competitive equity after high-school graduation and before college enrollment. Such a rule would mandate that after high-school graduation, if a prospect does not enroll at a collegiate institution upon his or her first opportunity:

(1) The prospect shall be charged with a season of intercollegiate competition for every calendar year after high-school graduation and before full-time collegiate enrollment during which the prospect engages in organized (yet to be defined) competition.

(2) If the prospect engages in organized competition, upon matriculation the prospect must fulfill an academic year in residence before eligible for competition.

One school of thought on this issue subscribes to the notion that deregulation of those areas is warranted for the benefit of student-athlete welfare as well as clarity, consistency and common sense. Division III no longer would be in the business of monitoring these kinds of activities for prospective student-athletes as long as they abided by our amateurism rules once they matriculated. Moreover, the real competitive advantage is gained by post-high-school competition at a highly organized level and is addressed by the seasons-of-competition rule above, which allows for young men and women to make youthful decisions that do have real consequences for college eligibility but that are not necessarily permanent and ever-lasting.

However, such deregulation might run contrary to the sense of ourselves that many of us have in Division III. Often, Division III is thought of as "the last real bastion of true amateurism." Can we or should we consider such a fundamental change in the ethos that has guided us so well since the formation of Division III? Can we or should we really contemplate allowing student-athletes to compete at the Division III level who have been paid to play, signed a contract, competed with professionals or been drafted before their college enrollment? Or, is it time for a change like the one the Olympic movement made some years ago regarding many of these same issues -- a change more consistent with modern realities? Or should we simply adhere to old-fashioned (classical?) principles and stand for something special and unique in a time when those values are losing moral currency?

A writer once observed that, "A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking." Nonetheless, the Division III task force needs the best thinking on these issues. These are complex problems that often weigh student-athlete welfare and values like clarity, consistency and common sense against equally compelling values like competitive fairness and longstanding and deeply held Division III philosophical principles.

The task force recently mailed an educational packet to all Division III member institutions and conferences. Further, the task force is reaching out to a pilot group in an effort to survey Division III thoughts on these issues. Finally, the task force will be making a presentation to Division III directors of athletics at NACDA meetings in June as well as the Division III membership at the 2001 Convention. Again, your thoughts and input on this issue are greatly appreciated.

Thomas Weingartner is the director of athletics at the University of Chicago and a member of the Division III Amateurism Task Force.