After 17 years in intercollegiate athletics as student-athlete, coach and administrator, I chose to commit myself to Division III athletics precisely because of its professed attachment to the ideals of amateurism and my belief that it is the last bastion of pure amateur intercollegiate sport in this country. However, even as Division I drags its collective feet and threatens to defeat (by comparison, much more reasonable) attempts to deregulate its current amateurism standards, Division III finds itself on the precipice of compromising everything it stands for and calling into question any distinctions that can be drawn among other divisions and organizations -- distinctions that have allowed the establishment of a very special and unique arena for athletics competition in this country.

One of the professed reasons appears to be the lack of competitive advantage gained, and this appears to be the crux of the Division III Amateurism Task Force's rationale as it pertains to Proposal Nos. 41 and 42.

The task force is correct -- simply extending your hand and accepting a paycheck certainly does not result in a competitive advantage. However, is there a coach on any of our campuses who would tell you that a young man or woman who has experienced the battles and pressures of professional competition has not gained a significant competitive advantage over those who have not?

This is about amateurism and maintaining the sanctity of what we stand for at the Division III level. It is about education first, and about intercollegiate athletics being truly nothing more than one part of the overall educational mission of our institutions and of the educational experience of the students on our campuses. For some reason, there is an increasing unwillingness or inability to proclaim that we are an amateur athletics association promoting the basic ideals of amateur sport. I have always believed that athletics competition in itself is a tremendous developer of character and teaches lifelong values, including teamwork, resiliency in response to adversity, humility, self-sacrifice and self-confidence. As soon as we begin to inject money and revenue generation into this equation, we move further and further away from our mission and this guiding principle.

Another argument made by the task force is that the current amateurism standard and legislation is confusing. If it is truly confusing, let's clarify it and do a better job of educating. Are the majority of cases very confusing? If you have signed a professional agreement or accepted payment for competing in a professional event, you have rendered yourself ineligible. That's not rocket science. For those unique Division III situations involving legitimate mitigating circumstances, we have a student-athlete reinstatement staff and process set up to carry out the will of the membership. If it's confusing, it's our responsibility to provide the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee with clearer direction and expectations regarding the standards for restoration, not sacrifice what we stand for and forever change the definition of amateurism as we know it.

We are headed down a slippery slope of concession, born out of an all-too-eager willingness to take the easy way out, as opposed to taking a firm position on who we are and what we stand for in this division.

There also appears to be an assumption that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of athletes in this country talented enough to have competed at the professional level, while still maintaining a burning desire to attend a Division III institution, pay their own tuition, room, board and fees, and compete in their sport in relative obscurity. I don't accept that premise. I am troubled by the fact that we may be prepared to completely blur the line that distinguishes the priorities and mission of Division III athletics beyond the point of recognition for the sake of, maybe, a fraction of
1 percent of all prospective Division III student-athletes.

Finally, I believe that this entire movement stemmed from the desire to address some perceived hypocrisies at the Division I level, combined with a lack of desire to actively enforce the current amateurism legislation. With the growing influx of international men's basketball student-athletes, most of whom have "professionalized" themselves by the age of 16, enforcement often results in very negative public relations involving high-profile programs and student-athletes. Division I (to its credit) is now questioning the wisdom of going down this amateurism deregulation path, yet, somehow, this issue has trickled down to the Division III level, with the potential to completely restructure priorities and perceptions, with very little practical impact. This is an issue of principle and perception. We are now on the brink of divorcing ourselves from one of our longstanding fundamental values and at the same time sending mixed messages to the public and our campus communities concerning our ultimate mission and priorities.

I ask all of my Division III colleagues to vote against this effort to wipe clean our definition of amateurism and to let everyone know that Division III institutions place tremendous value on maintaining a clear line of demarcation between pure amateur intercollegiate athletics and professional sports.