Welcome to the second edition of Presidents' Forum, a periodic feature in The NCAA News that gives presidents and chancellors an opportunity to present their views on important intercollegiate athletics issues. Presidents' Forum debuted in the June 7 issue of the News with an examination of the relationship between CEOs and boards of trustees. Our topic this time is a look at NCAA membership issues and the effect each division's membership goals and values have on the entire Association.

Membership aspirations are different for Divisions I, II and III. The reason that divisions initially were created is that NCAA colleges and universities collectively understood that one shoe does not fit all when it comes to membership affiliation. It has been and still is incumbent upon the Association to find a way to be respectful of the different institutional missions and the ability for colleges and universities to make a difference in intercollegiate athletics in their own way.

There are alternative perspectives one can have on intercollegiate athletics, and those perspectives are realized through the separation of divisions. But each division faces ongoing challenges in how to define itself. Division I is reviewing membership criteria that distinguish its football subdivisions and address an increasing desire among some I-AA programs to become I-A. The issue in Division II is more about members understanding the value of the affiliation. Division II is a strong division -- it is, for example, highly successful in the way it balances high-quality athletics within the educational experience. But Division II also is concerned about the possible migration of some of its more high-profile institutions.

In Division III, institutions hold to the view that scholarships for athletics participation are not part of the institutional mission, but members continue to adjust the proper balance between athletics -- including championships -- and the academic focus of the institution. The 2004 NCAA Convention clarified the academic environment Division III wants to create in athletics, but discussions about the future of Division III remain active.

Indeed, each of the divisions has membership concerns -- not unrelated to each other but different nonetheless. The fact that they are different demonstrates once again that the NCAA was right in dividing the membership into three parts. But the primary issue from an Association-wide perspective is the effect each division's identity search -- and the resulting migration from one division to another -- has on the entire NCAA.

The differences in athletics affiliation and the desire to "move up" are realized in other areas of higher education as well. Among some institutions of higher education, there is a desire to rise up in the perceived hierarchy. Some community colleges want to move up to be four-year institutions. Some four-year institutions want to have graduate programs and move up to be comprehensive institutions. Some comprehensive institutions tend to want to be research institutions. Higher education in general is a very competitive environment, and people on campus are ambitious for their own academic programs, their own school and how they rank among others.

Institutions are constantly evolving, and the commitment to intercollegiate athletics is going to shift along with changes in institutions. Colleges and universities are big ships -- each more like an aircraft carrier than a small weekend craft -- and they are hard to turn around. They take time; they take leadership and commitment from boards, faculties and presidents. Having said that, they do move, and over decades rather than years, that movement becomes clear. Thus, it is not unusual to see institutions with changing higher education aspirations and goals change their aspirations and goals about intercollegiate athletics as well.

Unfortunately in the last decade the public ranking of institutions has exacerbated this trend -- a trend I do not support. I believe institutions do much better when they understand what their mission is and who they are supposed to serve. Rather than try and chase some perceived hierarchical goals, they should focus on the success of their own mission and to achieve the highest quality of what they ought to be.

But that desire to always rise up in the perceived hierarchy, as mistaken as it is, also is irresistible to some. And that perpetuates this chase in athletics where it is believed, mistakenly I think, that moving from I-AA to I-A or from II to I-AA is a step forward rather than being more successful in I-AA or II. The desire to "move up" -- often resulting from miscalculation or pressure from external groups -- may have ramifications not only on the institution's athletics program, but on the institution in general.

Just as there are national recognition differences among four-year institutions, comprehensive institutions and research institutions, changes in status do not necessarily mean qualitative improvement. Sometimes, particularly in intercollegiate athletics, change in divisional status puts a difficult financial burden on the athletics department and the institution as a whole, and it could lead to a successful program failing. Thinking that going to Division I will satisfy board members or the public by making them think they are raising the status of the institution is wrong. They are not raising the status of the institution; rather, they are trapped into a narrow way of thinking. The real goal is to identify what their mission is and be successful within that mission area. That is the objective, not to chase artificial hierarchies in athletics or in higher education as a whole.

It is a persistent problem, simply because the desire to move up is so hard to resist. I do not think these kinds of membership issues, especially those that concern qualifications for belonging in a division or that address schools' comfort levels with the division they are in, will dissipate. There always will be discussions about the appropriateness of criteria, and many schools will review if the balance they have devised within their academic mission is appropriate to the division to which they belong. That is just the natural course of events.

But the NCAA has a responsibility to monitor how division affiliation criteria affect the greater good of the Association. The NCAA's concern is to be respectful of and advocate for the values of the individual institutions. After all, intercollegiate athletics in all divisions and subdivisions must serve the student-athlete, as well as the academic mission of the institution. Institutions must determine, through the most appropriate membership affiliation, how best to accomplish that within the context of their academic mission. While the NCAA cannot arbitrarily limit movement from one division to another, divisions can and should establish criteria that make sense for institutions of like-minded intercollegiate athletics missions.

Division affiliation indeed is a series of puzzles, but it does not work to take the pieces of one puzzle and try to fit them into another. Each division brings value to the NCAA, and each offers an alternative model in which to balance intercollegiate athletics and institutional academic missions. Every NCAA member university and college should align its divisional affiliation with its institutional mission and strive to excel within that context.

Myles Brand is president of the NCAA.