We have reached a critical time in the development of Division III when presidents must take on a larger role in determining the division's future direction. The alternative is a continuing drift and stalemate that has created uncertainty about the division's future and caused a number of member institutions to wonder whether Division III policies adequately reflect their vital interests.

The two governing principles around which the NCAA was restructured in the mid-1990s were the need to provide each of the three divisions with greater autonomy and the desirability of greater presidential control of intercollegiate athletics. The first goal has largely been achieved. Each division now has the mandate, structures and financial independence to conduct its own affairs. I hope the Association-wide strategic-planning efforts being launched will address the need to strengthen a sense of common purpose among the divisions. There is little doubt, however, that the aim of providing the three divisions with greater autonomy has been achieved.

The same cannot be said, at least in Division III, about the goal of greater presidential control. Structurally, the transition has gone well. The Presidents Council (which as the Presidents Commission in the old system held an ambiguous position) clearly has emerged as the dominant force in the Division III governance structure. Working effectively with the Management Council, it has over the past several years brought to the annual Convention a series of proposals that express the presidents' best judgment about the proper role of athletics competition in the division.

Many of these proposals, however, have not fared well on the Convention floor. Delegates have been unwilling to endorse legislation placing further limits on the length of seasons, placing further controls on the nontraditional segment, reducing the number of regular-season contests or restricting the practice of "redshirting."

The debates, and a number of close votes, have revealed a lack of consensus about the fundamental principles that should guide the division. It is notable that relatively few presidents have attended the Conventions and participated in these debates. And there was little evidence of the guiding hand of presidents in the ballots cast by other institutional representatives. Until the primary efforts of the division's leadership, especially the Presidents Council, are endorsed by the broader membership, it is difficult to argue that the goal of greater presidential control of the division has been achieved.

In the meantime, financial pressures on institutional budgets have increased. It appears that more institutions are having difficulty mustering the resources (human, physical, financial) to support longer seasons (often two seasons) for more sports. There are growing concerns about the adverse impact of longer seasons and more contests on the academic careers of athletes. And important studies like "The Game of Life" have raised new concerns that, beginning with the admissions process, even in Division III athletics interests have begun to erode the primacy of academic pursuits. In this context, it is not surprising that we are seeing a re-emergence of the concept of subdivision, the creation of subgroups within Division III based on the differing values and interests of member institutions.

I am pleased that the division's leadership has appointed a subcommittee on the future of Division III made up of Presidents Council and Management Council members. Division III presidents recently received a survey that ably frames the primary issues facing the division: financial aid, eligibility and recruiting, playing and practice seasons, championships and membership. I shared the survey with our director of athletics, senior woman administrator, and our faculty and student athletics representatives. We then met to develop an institutional response. The discussion was interesting and helpful. We resolved to get together on a periodic basis to continue our dialogue.

Completing a survey, however, will not be enough. More presidents must actively participate in the ongoing debates concerning the appropriate role of athletics in the Division III context. They also must ensure that their views and interests are appropriately represented in the work of NCAA committees within their conferences and on the floor of the annual Convention.

The reward should be policies and practices that more effectively express the presidents' vision of how intercollegiate athletics can support the primary academic values of institutions that have elected to be a part of Division III.

Stanley P. Caine is the president of Adrian College.