For Division III, this year's NCAA Convention was all about the future. From a newly announced subcommittee that will formally examine the future of the division, to membership decisions on legislation that will determine issues such as provisional membership, amateurism deregulation and playing and practice seasons, the division is looking ahead.

So what's inside the crystal ball? That's not certain yet, but it is clear that there will be a number of people attempting to discern that vision over the next several years.

One group that hopes to bring some clarity to that discussion is the new Joint Subcommittee on the Future of Division III, an entity whose creation was announced by outgoing Division III Presidents Council Chair Thomas B. Courtice, president of Ohio Wesleyan University. The Presidents Council formally approved the appointment of the subcommittee, which will be composed of members from the Presidents Council and Mangement Council, at its pre-Convention meeting. Courtice announced the creation of the subcommittee to the membership on the floor of the Convention at the beginning of the Division III Business Session.

"There have been issues over the past few years that have divided the Division III membership, even as those issues have been debated and voted upon in the last two years on the floor of this Convention. Whether it has been competition in the nontraditional season or red-shirting or automatic qualifiers, the size and diversity of our Division III membership may be inhibiting our organizational good health and vitality," he said.

"Future decisions about budget priorities, championships, financial aid policies and playing seasons run the risk of further fragmenting the membership, unless we can address the potential for legislative and organizational changes in the Division III landscape."

The subcommittee will begin work immediately to "better articulate the academic and athletics values within the sports cultures on our campuses and to explore the manner in which we might organize ourselves around those values," Courtice said.

The subcommittee will address those issues that are currently being discussed "around the fringes of the NCAA," Courtice said later, referring to outside groups that have begun tossing around the idea of subdividing Division III or of perhaps even creating a new division or athletics association.

"Our hope is that this subcommittee will address the issues underlying these conversations and perhaps develop the kinds of conversation within the Division III structure that have been going on outside it," he said.

"I think the hope would be to find some understanding to deal with that division of opinion we've had on issues. I think it's premature to talk of subdividing now, but that is clearly part of the conversation that is going on. And it would be far better, we thought, to start to be direct in our contemplation of that."

No critical mass of agreement

Some of the issues about which Courtice noted there was "no critical mass of agreement" in the division were among those voted upon at this Convention. Perhaps the most glaring example was Proposal No. 54, which permits organized strength and conditioning training sessions for football during the nontraditional segment.

The proposal, brought forth by the New Jersey Athletic Conference, was initially defeated, 133-155-46. (An earlier adoption of noncontroversial legislation altered voting regulations and permitted schools that do not offer football to cast a vote on this proposal, a development that may account for the large number of abstentions.)

A representative of an institution that had voted on the prevailing side brought No. 54 back during the window of reconsideration, and the vote to reconsider prevailed, 158-118-47. Finally, the proposal was adopted on reconsideration, 149-116-54.

Many delegates were persuaded by arguments that it was unfair to student-athletes in the sport of football to fail to provide them with a formally supervised nontraditional segment of any kind. Others seemed persuaded by arguments that football student-athletes would benefit from a health and safety standpoint.

Those ultimately on the losing side were concerned about overburdening facilities and coaches, increasing the amount of time expected of football student-athletes during the "off-season," and also the potential for strain on multi-sport student-athletes.

Many of the arguments heard on Proposal No. 54 were similar to those central to the division's discussion of nontraditional seasons in general a few years ago, and this issue does seem to be part of a larger picture in which there is little consensus in the division.

Likewise, there was similar division on Proposal No. 51, also a playing and practice seasons issue, which would have standardized preseason scrimmage opportunities by permitting an institution to exempt one scrimmage or date of competition during the preseason-practice period of the traditional segment, provided no class time was missed. That proposal was defeated, 151-182-6.

While many delegates were concerned about the lack of a definition of "missed class time," and whether the lack of a specific definition would unduly penalize students who had arranged to make up the work, others were concerned that permitting any more scrimmage opportunities than currently exist for any sport would be a step in the wrong direction. Still others were opposed to the legislation because it would have resulted in two fewer scrimmage opportunities for soccer and one fewer for basketball.

A call for change in championships

One area where the membership made its voice heard in a more unified way this year was on the topic of championships and the review of the automatic-qualification process. Again this year the Division III business session was composed of discussion sessions on important issues in the morning with voting on legislation in the afternoon.

One of the most engaging presentations for many members was the one from the Division III Championships Committee, where the membership heard about financial challenges and also offered quite a bit of feedback on future direction. Much of that feedback indicated that the issue of at-large berths was one of significance for the membership.

Brad Bankston, chair of the Championships Committee and commissioner of the Old Dominion Conference, gave the membership a review of the committee's work in recent years, particularly since the automatic-qualification legislation was adopted in 1999. Bankston also reviewed the committee's direction for the future and its most recent work, particularly as it related to plans to manage the budget.

"As many of you know, Division III championships ran a deficit of more than $750,000 in the 2000-01 academic year," Bankston said.

"This is not the first time championships has run in the red. In fact, three of the last four years have seen the championship program run in the red. Previous shortfalls have been taken from the Division III reserve or have been made up through additional monies from other programs," he said.

"Judging from recent budget history, it is very clear that we must first address the current shortfalls in the Division III championships budget prior to earmarking funds for future enhancements and other expenditures."

Bankston indicated that the committee was still studying reasons for the shortfall, and he also reviewed new policies that would help manage costs. Bankston also noted that the committee had recommended both an increase in the base budget of the championships program (so that costs were more in line with realistic expectations of expenses) and also the creation of a contingency fund to manage costs that cannot be predicted, such as industrywide increases in travel costs.

At the question-and-answer time for the championships committee presentation, and again during debate later of several proposals related to championships and automatic qualification, the membership expressed its concern that at-large berths be expanded to accommodate deserving conference teams that did not secure an automatic berth.

Perhaps in keeping with that concern, the membership adopted Proposal No. 48, a resolution that called for the review of championships, particularly berth allocations, and also for the presentation of legislation on the matter at the 2003 NCAA Convention.

A more specific piece of legislation, Proposal No. 47, which would have required that at least 50 percent of the championship field in all Division III team sports be reserved for at-large berths, was referred to the Championships Committee.

"(No. 47) does not represent a shift in philosophy for the Division," said Dick Rasmussen, commissioner of the University Athletic Association, which sponsored the proposal. "It simply extends the philosophy of fair access by providing fair opportunities."

Although the implementation date for No. 47 was 2007, several speakers argued that adopting the legislation would unfairly tie the hands of the Championships Committee before it had the chance to complete its review the AQ.

"In light of the championships presentation we heard this morning and the championships budget shortfall, I think we need to make sure this proposal is put in line with all the other proposals the Championships Committee plans to review," said Bette Landman, president of Arcadia University and also the incoming chair of the Division III Presidents Council. "I think we first need to be sure that we are fully funding our current championships program before we undertake new initiatives."

A similar argument was initiated for No. 48, but many delegates seemed to think that the resolution was innocuous enough that it need not be referred.

"If we have ever referred a resolution and not debated it on the floor, this is the first time in years," said Charles J. Gordon, athletics director at Emory University. "This issue is a critical issue to the membership, and it's a critical issue that a number of conferences have discussed. I can't believe we are avoiding the discussion here on the Convention floor by (proposing to refer) it to a committee."

Several speakers also noted their belief that a vote for No. 48 was simply a vote for a thorough review of the AQ process and a commitment to bring legislation in 2003. That view prevailed, and the resolution was adopted, 243-82-8, after the motion to refer it to the Championships Committee failed, 126-211-2.

Amateurism deregulation

In what was somewhat of a surprise to many in attendance, the amateurism deregulation package for prospective student-athletes was approved by the membership with little dissention or debate. Amateurism also was on the schedule for morning discussion prior to the afternoon voting session, and members of the Division III Amateurism Task Force again provided an overview of the task force's work and reasoning for Proposal Nos. 40-44.

The most vigorous opposition came from John Cochrane, commissioner of the Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, who questioned the need for the legislation in light of its potential impact on the division.

"There simply is no crisis in Division III," he said. "And this legislation threatens the very ideal of this division and blurs the definition of who we are. Let's send a message to our communities, faculty and students that Division III is the only arena for pure amateur sport in this country."

Most delegates however, were persuaded by the task force and members of the Management Council and Presidents Council, who spoke of the need to deregulate, treat pre-enrolled student-athletes from different sports more equitably and also to cease penalizing the 'failed professional' whose only crime might have been unwisely signing a contract or entering a draft.

Also, several speakers noted that the concept of "pay for play," which was one of the components of the amateurism deregulation package adopted last year by Division II, was not part of the Division III legislative package forwarded by the task force for membership consideration.

Ultimately, all of the proposals passed by a significant margin once No. 40, the seasons-of-competition and academic-year-in-residence rule, passed, 291-46-4. The membership also adopted legislation permitting: the acceptance of prize money based on place finish; competition with professionals; the signing of a professional contract; and the entering of a professional draft.

Provisional membership

It's likely that Division III will remove the membership moratorium this spring since the membership adopted a new provisional membership program to manage any new growth. The program would commence this summer.

Proposal No. 45, which set out a limit of six provisional members per year to be chosen by a random-selection process, received quite a bit of discussion. An attempt to split out the legislation and vote separately on the pieces requiring a one-year exploratory period and the cap of six schools was defeated. Then the discussion moved to No. 45-1, which would have provided an exemption from the exploratory period and also from the random-selection process for an institution meeting the requirements of the proposal.

In perhaps an unusual circumstance at the Convention in recent years, 45-1 was opposed by the Division III Membership Committee and Management Council, yet supported by the Division III Presidents Council.

Those who opposed 45-1 asserted that it was special-interest legislation that would benefit only one institution by exempting it from the new process.

Members of the Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association (MIAA), which sponsored 45-1, argued that the legislation would benefit their entire conference by permitting them to add as a provisional member an institution that had engaged in significant exploratory and educational sessions with the MIAA. No. 45-1 was ultimately defeated, 117-218-8.

The discussion of No. 45 then centered around the concerns that a random-selection process was not fair to those institutions that perhaps had done additional preparatory work, as the institution affiliated with the MIAA appeared to have done. Other delegates were concerned that the process did not take into account the needs of the division, perhaps geographically, when assigning slots to provisional members in particular years.

Ultimately though, the membership was persuaded that control of membership growth, along with a comprehensive membership-education program that would not invite litigation, was the desirable outcome of No. 45. It passed, 273-62-5.

Financial aid

Perhaps one of the most anticipated legislative proposals was one that was actually withdrawn, No. 46, which would have established a financial aid audit procedure.

The Presidents Council, which had sponsored the legislation, withdrew it because of concerns that had become apparent at the conclusion of a pilot audit conducted this fall and reported to the Council in October. The Council remained concerned about costs, the scope of the audit, sample size and accuracy, among other issues.

During the morning discussion session, the Division III membership met the leadership of the Division III Financial Aid Audit Task Force, which the Presidents Council has charged with pursuing the development of a financial aid audit procedure and also legislation for the 2003 NCAA Convention.

Kevin LaGree, president of Simpson College and a member of the Presidents Council, is chair of the new task force. For additional information on the task force, see the December Division III newsletter on the Web site at www.ncaa.org.