ANAHEIM, California -- The January 12 forum on the future of Division III was the first time the Division III membership had a chance to discuss the topic en masse, and there was no shortage of opinions.

It also was the first chance the membership had to hear from the Presidents Council/Management Council Joint Subcommittee on the Future of Division III, a body whose creation was announced at last year's NCAA Convention.

The bulk of the afternoon was spent either in round-table discussion or in discussion as a large group, with the goal of airing as many points of view as possible.

More than 630 individuals from the Division III membership participated in the interactive forum, and the majority of attendees who sought out microphones to air their views were opposed to the concept of subdivision.

Bette Landman, president at Arcadia University and chair of the Division III Presidents Council, introduced the forum with an explanation of the subcommittee's background and charge: "to examine the shared educational values of the division in light of the Division III philosophy; and to explore options for legislative and organizational change, consistent with those shared values and philosophy."

Christopher Walker, faculty athletics representative at University of Redlands and chair of the Management Council, then led attendees through the feedback garnered from the membership so far. Walker noted that members of the joint subcommittee or staff had attended 38 meetings of the membership to discuss the future of Division III. Those meetings included an estimated 500 administrators and 100 student-athletes.

Walker then summarized the feedback by the subcommittee's five focus areas: financial aid; eligibility and recruiting; playing and practice seasons; championships; and membership requirements. Walker noted that few areas enjoyed consensus, though most people favored retaining the status quo in financial aid (no consideration of athletics ability in award packaging), and there was virtually no support to establish initial- or continuing-eligibility legislation as exists in Divisions I and II.

There seemed to be varying degrees of support for many other possible changes in Division III, from changes in recruiting -- possibly creating "dead periods" -- to playing and practice seasons, championships and sports sponsorship.

Susan Bassett, athletics director at William Smith College and vice-chair of the Management Council, then reviewed several possible membership models that included remaining as one division (perhaps retaining the status quo, with limited or major reform) and also subdividing (perhaps retaining many elements of the status quo, or with a more restrictive approach).

The ensuing small-group discussions revealed that some members were worried about "Division I creep" in matters such as redshirting, extensive off-season workouts and the expansion of nontraditional seasons.

Others were concerned about treating athletes differently from other students when it came to admissions. Several members discussed the reality that some student-athletes today come to college having participated in intensive specialized sports programs, including club sports, and may bring with them a different expectation of their participation than student-athletes of only 10 years ago.

After 30 minutes of small-group discussion, participants were encouraged to bring either their own views or those of their table to the larger group. Most of those who spoke expressed opposition to subdivision.

"By having this discussion, are we bringing some validity to the topic of subdivision?" asked Jim Nelson, athletics director at Suffolk University. "Is that really what we want to do when the feedback so far indicates that the majority is opposed to subdivision?"

Barb Bolich, athletics director at Dominican University (Illinois), agreed. "We in Division III are bound by a strong philosophy and a strong mission statement. We need to make sure we value that and not simply rush to subdivision."

Philosophical differences

Others disagreed on whether the Division III philosophy was working effectively for the entire division.

"I think subdivision is about differing philosophies, and I would argue that our philosophies are not that different," said Brad Coffey, a soccer student-athlete at Amherst College and a member of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

Dennis Collins, commissioner of the North Coast Athletic Conference, disagreed. "We felt there are really two or three different philosophies at work now in Division III," Collins said of discussion at his table, noting that Division III schools range from sponsoring 10 sports to more than 30. "To not recognize that there are differences among 410 institutions is ridiculous. Our table was in support of increased sport sponsorship -- if it was in a subdivision setting so as not to disadvantage those institutions that did not have the means to do that."

Diversity a plus

However, several speakers mentioned the breadth of the division as one of its strong points.

"One of the great strengths of Division III is its diversity. The place to find greater unanimity is at the conference level," said Bill Gehling, athletics director at Tufts University.

Other speakers agreed with the idea that the diversity inherent in Division III was easily managed by institutions having the ability to affiliate with like-minded institutions through conference affiliation.

"I think subdivision has already been accomplished through conferences," said Chuck Gordon, athletics director at Emory University. "We make choices about who we want to play during the regular season and who we associate with by (affiliating with) conferences. I think a lot of people control their own destiny now through conferences, so I think subdivision is unnecessary."

While many in the audience seemed to think that conferences were the appropriate place to group with similar institutions, not everyone agreed.

"There are some out there who think differently than most of the views expressed today," said Dan Calandro, athletics director at Knox College. "There are some who would like to pull back, who don't want to bid on student-athletes."

Leon Lunder, athletics director at Carleton College and a member of the Management Council, said he thought the problem was really excesses that had developed over the years as institutions and athletics administrators have continually raised the bar to be more competitive.

"We have to keep in mind that the drive to reach the top is the one thing that's always going to be there," Lunder said. "I oppose subdivision because I don't think it's going to solve the problem. People still want to win, to push for more, so if we subdivide, people are simply going to start pushing the envelope of their subdivision."

John McCardell, president of Middlebury College and vice-chair of the Presidents Council, provided an overview of the timeline for the subcommittee as it continues to examine the issue of the division's future. McCardell noted that feedback garnered from the forum will be used to assist in the development of a survey sent to the membership in February or March and focus groups conducted in April.

McCardell emphasized that any legislation developed would include results of the survey and focus group discussions and would be forwarded to the Management Council and Presidents Council in time for their July meetings. Any legislation endorsed by the Management Council and sponsored by the Presidents Council would then be voted upon by the Division III membership at the 2004 NCAA Convention before adoption.