When it comes to examining the NCAA's three-division model and how the actions of one division can affect the greater Association, Bridgewater College (Virginia) President Phillip C. Stone has the right perspective. He said one of the most important observations he has made during his time in the NCAA governance structure as a member and now chair of the Division III Presidents Council is that "the Association is not always clearly congruent and put together in such a way that all the pieces fit nicely."

Therein lies the value of Division III. It may look very different from the other pieces in the NCAA puzzle, but the puzzle can't be completed without it.

Indeed, while the largest contingent in the NCAA is engaged in an ongoing debate about how its diverse membership can best align under a strongly principled umbrella, it is likely that the value of the division to the greater Association will stay intact regardless of the ultimate outcome of the "future of the division" discussions. As a group of institutions that believe so strongly in the integration of athletics into the educational mission that they do not offer athletics scholarships, Division III remains a "pure" alternative within the intercollegiate structure.

One college president says of Division III: "It recognizes that there is a breadth and diversity to American higher education. It gives credence to small private liberal arts colleges that want to provide the athletics experience but to make academics the primary focus. The NCAA should represent all of higher education, and the three-division model is a very appropriate structure to accomplish that."

That president is Stuart Gulley of La Grange College, an institution that only recently went through the provisional process from the NAIA and is now one of Division III's newest active members. Gulley said the school sought Division III because "it helped us continue our institutional mission and purpose because they are a perfect match with the Division III philosophy."

Charles Shearer, president of Division III member Transylvania University, said of the division: "It provides the ideal alternative, especially for small liberal arts colleges; it allows students to participate in a well-managed structure of competition, it allows for colleges like us to recruit athletes without having to use athletics scholarships; and it provides opportunities for students to obtain postgraduate scholarships and other educational benefits.

"Division III gives a great opportunity for schools like Transylvania to have a strong athletics program without sacrificing a commitment to academics or other institutional programs."

Those are core foundations not only to Division III, but to the NCAA. As "incongruent" as Stone said the NCAA can be, there are many things the three divisions have in common.

Stone mentioned the image of intercollegiate athletics, the role of athletics in the educational environment, how the NCAA is interpreted in the public and how the NCAA influences public attitudes toward sports as some.

"We have enough in common that it's clear we belong together," he said. "Each of us can offer something of value to the other divisions as we come together in the Executive Committee or otherwise. Our individual perspectives enrich the whole Association."

Shearer echoed Stone's sentiments: "The NCAA, whether Division I, II or III, is an organization that has many venues for participation, it's an organization that is well managed and it's an organization that listens to its members and upholds the highest standards of excellence and fair play."

While the line distinguishing Division III from the other two divisions is much brighter than the line between Divisions I and II (simply because of the scholarship factor), the future of Division III does affect its divisional partners. As Division III relies on funding generated by Division I, Stone said it returns a role model in mission and balance that is just as valuable.

"By and large, Division III schools -- partly by not being lured down the economic road of TV rights and media exposure -- are able to hold on to the more pure intercollegiate athletics model," Stone said. "It's not only good for Division III to have it, but it's an excellent model for the whole Association. That model may not be dependent on nonscholarship or low-visibility programs, but it better assures that the model is maintained.

"In other words, I don't have any prospect of making a New Years' Day bowl game or a nationally televised basketball game -- perhaps if I did I'd be so tempted that I would move in another direction -- but our circumstances help protect the purity of our approach."

More importantly, Stone said, it fundamentally reflects Division III's philosophy, which so emphatically puts academics front and center and athletics as an integral part of the educational experience.

"That model is a good reminder even for Divisions I and II as they contend with this challenge of balance, integration and priorities," he said. "It provides another model to look at even though Divisions I and II schools may consider Division III as not the right fit because they may be larger and more committed to athletics through resources and scholarships.

"Still, there is a model to provide a check and balance."

That Division III check may be just what the NCAA needs to balance its educational account.

-- Gary T. Brown