Explorers scouting uncharted territory have always set off on their journeys seeking important guideposts and landmarks. That's exactly what Division III is doing with a survey that will be arriving on campuses this week.

Division III is in the process of determining its future course -- subdivision, "reform" package, status quo or some combination thereof -- and it's time to examine the landscape more closely.

At the direction of the Division III Presidents Council, the NCAA has sent a survey to each Division III president asking for an institutional response. Athletics directors, senior woman administrators, faculty athletics representatives, student-athlete advisory committee liaisons and conference commissioners also have been informed that the survey has been sent to the president of their institutions.

Completed surveys are due back to the NCAA by March 7.

While the Division III forum discussion at the 2003 Convention may have provided some information about the lay of the land, the voting at the Convention showed how mysterious the territory remains. The forum discussion was dominated by those who oppose subdivision, but the voting session illustrated a general split in the membership between those who want more restrictions -- on playing and practice seasons, as one example -- and those who either want fewer restrictions or the status quo.

Several votes on the Convention floor in the past few years, from redshirting to nontraditional seasons, have indicated that the membership is largely split on a number of issues. The survey is part of a larger effort to discern the membership's views that so far has included the Convention forum and nearly 50 personal visits by Management Council and Presidents Council members and NCAA staff to conference and constituent group meetings of CEOs, athletics administrators, faculty athletics representatives and student-athletes. The point is to stimulate discussion on the matter by all types of individuals who ultimately would be affected by any changes. The survey can help do that.

"In this futures discussion, we need the full involvement of the institution -- including the president -- and we need the involvement of every institution in Division III," said Kevin LaGree, president of Simpson College and the new vice-chair of the Presidents Council. "Second, we'd like greater involvement of CEOs on their own campuses and in Division III. In the time since the Knight Commission first convened and issued its report, presidential involvement has been embodied in the governance structure of the NCAA. CEO oversight of athletics is becoming more of a reality. This conversation about the future of Division III and the survey helps get CEOs even more involved."

Douglas Hastad, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, and a member of the Management Council, also notes that the survey provides an opportunity for a variety of voices to weigh in on a number of issues within the futures discussion.

"The Management Council remains committed to a broad discussion regarding the future of Division III," Hastad said. "Responses from a division-wide survey will provide additional kernels of information about the thinking of the member institutions. Hopefully, the results will help the Councils identify patterns of common thought and points of difference. This will help us focus the conversation."

Leon Lunder, athletics director at Carleton College and a member of the Management Council, said the survey also may point to precisely which issues in Division III are the most divisive.

"The hope is that we're going to have a little more clarification on what I call 'jugular' issues that the membership keeps talking about," he said. "I also think we're asking questions on the Division III philosophy so that we can, as a division, determine whether our practices and our philosophy are in line with each other. In other words, 'Are we doing what we say we're doing, and is what we're doing appropriate for Division III?' "

Presidential involvement

It's no accident that the survey requires a CEO signature. The Presidents Council and Management Council carefully considered options that included sending a survey to each institution's president, athletics director, senior woman administrator and faculty athletics representative, SAACs and conference commissioners.

Ultimately though, the Councils came to the conclusion that while individual opinions may vary on the topics, there should be one institutional answer and that answer should come through the president's office.

"I fear that too many of my presidential colleagues are not as aware as they might be of the reform issues now under discussion," said John McCardell, president of Middlebury College and the new chair of the Presidents Council.

"I was, frankly, surprised by the number of apparently 'uninstructed' delegate votes at the Anaheim Convention. Several presidents have expressed their surprise at how their own institutional votes were cast. Certainly neither I nor the Council seek a particular outcome, but we do expect presidents to exercise their appropriate leadership and decision-making role in these matters."

The survey also is a way of broadening the feedback from the membership.

"We've received feedback from athletics administrators in a variety of ways so far, from the Convention forum to the various conference meetings we've attended," said Connee Zotos, athletics director at Drew University and a member of the Management Council. "Now it's time for the president, the athletics director, the senior woman administrator and the faculty athletics representative to get together in a room and discuss the issues and provide an institutional response. By requiring a presidential signature, it clearly sends the message that we want an institutional response based on philosophical principles."

Bette Landman, president of Arcadia University and the former chair of the Presidents Council, said, "Now more than ever, this is a time when presidents need to come to the fore. They should step forward, not to ignore other members of the institutional community who are a part of athletics, but to bring together all the interested parties on campus and learn what the issues are. The survey will encourage dialogue among critical members of the campus athletics community and pull the presidents into the process."

Susan Bassett, athletics director at William Smith College and the new chair of the Management Council, agreed.

"I think the most important aspect of this survey is that it's intended to be an institutional document," she said. "We want to know not what Susan Bassett thinks but what Hobart and William Smith, as an institution, thinks about the issue."

Bassett noted that on her campus, she and her counterpart at Hobart have scheduled a meeting with their president for this week to talk about the matter, and they have sent background materials to the president's office in preparation for the meeting. "We'll brief him on all the issues and then we'll decide how we're going to respond to the survey," she said. "I would suggest to other athletics administrators that they take this opportunity to brief the appropriate people on their campus and let them know the survey is coming."

Hastad also encouraged his fellow CEOs to get involved in the discussion.

"I would encourage presidents and chancellors to make a personal investment of time to participate. Their opinions will help shape the issues and form the agenda," he said.

"CEOs know how important fund-raising is and so they are involved in its oversight," LaGree added. "In my mind, athletics is similar. Athletics affects our institutions and is an important part of recruitment and retention. I delegate to the athletics director many things, just as I delegate much of fund-raising to a (development officer). But when my evaluation gets done, I am responsible. It's a combination of both delegating it and being responsible for overseeing it, but ultimately I am responsible."

LaGree also noted that the outcome of the discussion itself has consequences that will reachup to the presidents' offices.

"How Division III ultimately gets structured has a direct impact on schools' athletics programs," LaGree said. "If there is subdivision, it might have a tremendous impact on conferences, which probably would mean that schools would have to consider aligning with a different conference. There are potentially some significant costs involved depending upon what future direction we select for ourselves."

Hastad agreed.

"This future agenda has the potential to reshape Division III," he said. "That outcome could have serious fiscal implications. It is vital that CEOs get involved. Our hope is that presidents or chancellors and athletics directors have candid discussions about the role of athletics within their respective institution."

Survey seeks variety of input

The survey seeks a wide variety of input on matters that seem to have some disagreement within Division III -- such as nontraditional seasons and playing and practice seasons -- as well as those issues that seem to have agreement, such as the current Division III rule to offer no athletically related financial aid.

The intent of the questions is to discover those areas on which there is the most disagreement and measure its intensity. To do that accurately, the survey asks respondents to indicate their level of agreement with particular ideas on a scale from "strongly support" to "strongly oppose."

The five areas of focus within the survey are financial aid, eligibility and recruiting, playing and practice seasons, membership requirements, and championships. Those areas of focus are the same as that of the subgroups of the the Presidents Council/Management Council Joint Subcommittee on the Future of Division III that has been examining the issue for the past year.

The survey also asks about different elements of the current Division III philosophy as it relates to those areas, asking survey recipients to indicate their level of agreement with statements such as "assure that athletics participants and nonathletes are not treated differently" and "primary emphasis on regional in-season competition and conference championships."

Asking about the philosophy is one more way to determine if the Division III membership is on the same page.

"Every subject area starts with the philosophy statement, and that's important," Zotos said. "We want to know how you feel, but also why you feel that way. I would suspect we might have some folks out there who have never thought about the 'whys' of what we do."

Added McCardell, "I remain concerned that our division, which now numbers more than 400 institutions, is losing consensus over how the Division III philosophy should be applied. This has nothing to do with any particular conference being 'right' or 'wrong,' but it does suggest that a moment may be approaching when a large minority of institutions, seeking a more strict construction of the philosophy, places itself in the position of requesting its majority colleagues not to change anything themselves but also not to stand in the way of the minority making changes it deems appropriate for its own campus cultures. Self-selection, institutional choice, is critical, but in order for there to be choice there must be choices, along with the freedom to choose."

Feedback from the survey will help frame the content of focus groups that are tentatively planned for in-person meetings in the days before the Division III Presidents Council meeting in April.

As chair of the Presidents Council, McCardell will be sending a letter to all Division III CEOs asking them to engage in the futures discussion and also provide an institutional response to the survey.

Also, members of the Division III Presidents Council have committed to a communications plan that involves contacting their colleagues with the goal of reaching as many presidents as possible and asking them to become engaged in the futures discussion.

Information about the futures discussion is available on the NCAA Web site, www.ncaa.org. (Go to "Administration and Governance," then "Division III," then "Future of Division III").

William Smith's Bassett also encouraged athletics directors to take a leadership role in engaging their campus in the discussion, including student-athletes and presidents.

"I would hope after the forum at Convention, when many people talked about the concept of the future of Division III for the first time, that we are vested in this discussion and committed to continuing the dialogue," she said.