Through its various reorganizations -- first into the University and College Divisions, then Divisions I, II and III, and then the subdivision of Division I -- naming of the NCAA's basic competitive divisions has been accomplished relatively easily, even if the reorganizations themselves were difficult.

Consistent with its history of labeling, when the Association divided in 1973 into Divisions I, II and III, it put far more thought into pros and cons of dividing than into selecting the labels for the new entities.

Edgar A. Sherman, former director of athletics as Muskingum College and chair of the special committee that devised the reorgan-
ization plan that ultimately was approved by the membership, is quoted in Jack Falla's book, "NCAA: The Voice of College Sports:" "The committee started out by suggesting maybe we could call (the divisions) by colors or names to try to avoid the one, two, three implication; but as we progressed, the discussion always got back to designating them one, two, three.

"I guess rather than fight, we gave into to it, and those are the names given."

Of course, the inability of those labels to fully portray the complexity and diversity of the Association continues to have ramifications more than 30 years later.

Division I regularly has wrestled with the varying levels of commitment to athletics among its members, and on a couple of occasions even has considered subdividing further into a fourth group (typically referred to as I-AAAA).

Late last year, in a nod to difficulties faced by smaller football-playing schools in Division I, talk arose of breaking the bonds of current divisions and reorganizing competition into levels based on criteria other than division membership. Those discussions continue.

Division III also has flirted with the idea of subdivision, although the reform agenda that was approved at the 2004 Convention appears to have quieted such talk.

However, all of this activity largely has occurred without the general public understanding -- or even caring -- about the Association's basic membership classifications.

"Most people can't discern among them other than to say Division I is the most important in terms of having the best athletes," said Jeff Jacobs of Landor and Associates, a branding consultant. "They don't understand eligibility differences or aid variances among divisions."

-- Jack Copeland