Seven years ago, just like many other committees in a newly restructured NCAA, the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee gathered for its first meeting. And just like members of any new committee, the student-athletes who met for the first time as SAAC members spent the first moments tending to organizational details, such as selecting officers and assigning tasks.

Those probably were the only moments when the Division III SAAC was just like any other committee.

Since then, like the athletics squads that SAAC members play on at their schools, the committee has been more like a team than an administrative body: It practices hard, and its members spend countless hours together, become close friends, and bond into a cohesive but competitive unit.

And like a good team, it wins many victories -- though recently, it has struggled with learning how to handle a rare defeat.

Now, after seven years, it appears that SAAC is turning a corner, leaving behind many growing pains but still feeling its way into the future.

The committee recently marked that change of course with another of the types of activities that makes it unique among NCAA committees: It hosted a reunion July 17 for past members, including many who were present at SAAC's first meeting.

The reunion was conceived as an opportunity for friends to reunite, get reacquainted and again enjoy each other's company. But the current and former committee members who attended took advantage of the opportunity to talk about where SAAC has been, where it is today, and where it is headed.

The Division III SAAC met for the first time in July 1997 at the Brown Palace Hotel in Denver.

"It was a totally new experience, coming to that first meeting out in Colorado," remembers Kerry Gotham, then a basketball and golf student-athlete at Nazareth College, who immediately found himself serving as one of the first student-athletes appointed to a voting position on the Division III Management Council.

"We wanted to make sure we established ourselves as a legitimate voice, so we spent the first couple of meetings, and actually the first couple of years, looking for ways to establish that voice."

"I think we all were, at first, shell-shocked in terms of trying to learn our role and responsibilities," said Amy Huchthausen, then a softball player at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, who recalls that Division III leaders seemed just as uncertain -- even after granting student-athletes what remains today the only opportunity in any of the Association's three divisions to cast a vote on issues at the Management Council level.

"The unique thing about Division III was the two student-athlete voting members on the Management Council. We weren't sure that wasn't just lip service, or a token position, but after we got off and running, we realized they certainly valued our opinion. That helped the committee grow as its own entity.

"We started from a point where I don't think anyone was sure what our role was going to be -- from the SAAC's perspective and the membership's perspective -- but through my five years, I think the membership really listened to us," Huchthausen said. "It was evident on the Convention floor, where we were called upon frequently to give our opinions ... the visibility of the SAAC really grew in those first five years."

Visibility created influence, suggests John Galgano, who joined the committee in 1998 as a baseball student-athlete from Manhattanville College and later served a term concurrently with Huchthausen on the Management Council.

"When I first joined the Management Council, it was a big thing to raise my hand and say something, but the more I went to meetings, the more people listened to what we had to say, and by the time I left, 'What do the student-athletes think about this?' always was the first question.

"They wanted to make sure we were on their side, because they knew if we weren't, it was going to be a huge, uphill battle, whatever the scenario."

Such was the case in 2000, when the Division III Presidents Council sponsored a proposal to eliminate outside competition in most sports during the nontraditional season.

SAAC members decided to oppose the proposal, but after a lengthy morning debate at the Convention, it passed by the narrowest of margins -- three votes. However, during a recess for lunch, delegates began asking SAAC members about their position, and one requested reconsideration during the afternoon session.

SAAC members threw themselves into the resulting debate, with Galgano among others taking the floor to argue forcefully against the measure, asking delegates to place student-athletes' desire to play above other concerns. Ultimately, the membership decided to refer the question back to the Presidents Council.

During the recent reunion, Huchthausen recalled that moment as the highlight of her SAAC service. She also acknowledged it was the "genesis" of another big moment in SAAC history -- a vote at the 2004 Convention that many current members of the committee regard as a defeat.

Influence and responsibility

Visibility brings influence, but influence brings with it the burden of responsibility, suggests another SAAC veteran.

Jaime Fluker, a long-jumper at Carthage College when she joined SAAC in 2001, chaired a meeting just before the 2004 Convention that most current committee members agree was one of the group's toughest moments ever -- an internal debate over which position it should take on proposed playing-and-practice-seasons limitations.

The committee's instinct was to oppose reductions, just as it previously had, especially in 2000. But SAAC was urged by Division III leaders to consider the possible consequences of rejecting efforts to scale back practice and competition -- the very real possibility that a significant portion of the Division III membership would respond by seeking subdivision or even leaving the NCAA.

The committee suddenly found itself the focus of what members perceived as something new -- intense lobbying for support of proposals.

"This was the first time while I've been on the committee that we've struggled with any piece of legislation," Fluker said. "I think the biggest problem was that we as committee members are fortunate to be able to be educated on a lot of the issues. When we discuss legislation, we get the big picture, but when we go back and discuss it with other student-athletes, they haven't sat in on hours-long discussions like we have, or have the background and information that we do."

Fluker said the committee struggled to balance student-athletes' desire to play with the broader importance of the proposals.

"That was why we debated, went back and forth with our decision, because we were educated about things that others don't have access to. When we were trying to make those decisions, yes, we were speaking for and representing everyone, but it's really hard to know something that others don't know, and then take their opinion into consideration, too."

The committee changed its mind more than once, then finally, reluctantly, decided to take no position. Many of SAAC's members, uncomfortable with that decision, began feeling regret and even anger when the membership voted to reduce competition in the nontraditional seasons of seven sports, in addition to cutting the overall length of the playing season by two weeks.

The outcome stung the committee, whose members felt after the Convention like they had lost a vote -- for the first time.

Looking forward

Sarah Forbus, who joined SAAC in 2001 as a basketball student-athlete at Denison University, was selected by fellow committee members to serve on the Management Council during her final year of SAAC service. She attended her first Council meeting just hours after the debate and vote on the playing and practice seasons proposals.

"It was awkward," she admits. "We were just done voting, (Council members) were excited over a big win, but for us, we felt like we'd been slapped in the face and dragged through the mud."

That feeling lingered for a few months, through a regional student-athlete leadership conference in February, where SAAC members found themselves defending what happened at the Convention.

"When we went back to explain this, (student-athletes attending the conference) saw this as a reduction in playing and practice seasons, while we were seeing a big picture -- this might keep the division together," Fluker said. "They weren't worried about that."

But like a good team, SAAC picked itself up and began looking forward.

"We decided as a committee we were going to move on," Forbus said. "We can't change what's happened; we really wanted to focus on the good things that student-athletes are doing and the opportunities that Division III allows. It was good in a way, because it made us change our focus. Instead of always defending ourselves ... we're just going to go out and say, 'This is why we're proud to be Division III student-athletes.' "

During the July reunion, the former SAAC members showed sympathy and helped put things in perspective -- though it wasn't sugar-coated.

Galgano, who argued so passionately against reductions at the 2000 Convention, admitted he is disappointed that SAAC didn't maintain that position at the 2004 Convention.

But he concedes that SAAC never was lobbied during his time on the committee to the extent that members were pressured this year.

"I think the committee put in a lot of hard work, and their intentions are pure," he said of the current group. "I think it has more to do with outside forces coming at them from every direction. In the NCAA now, everyone wants to influence the SAAC in some way, and that's something new."

"The biggest message they had for us was just keep doing what we're doing, and don't forget about the student-athlete voice," Fluker said about former SAAC members. "Don't forget who we represent and how strong our voice is. If we feel strongly about something, it doesn't matter if we go against the grain; that's fine, because that's what the committee has always done."

The real legacy

Current and former members agree SAAC's legacy won't be whether it wins or loses votes to cut games but its success in giving student-athletes a meaningful voice in Division III.

"Years from now, when we get together for another reunion, the reduction probably isn't something we're going to discuss," said Fluker, currently a graduate student working in the athletics department at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, whose SAAC term ended this month.

Forbus, now a marketing coordinator at Adidas America whose term will end after the 2005 Convention, suggests that SAAC will take steps to increase communication between student-athletes and the institutional chief executive officers who recently have emerged as an influential force in Division III. She also believes student-athletes will be active participants in the current Future of Division III-Phase II discussions, aggressively seeking opportunities to share their views with other constituencies.

Those activities are consistent with the hopes of SAAC's early leaders, who say they are most proud of the work the committee has done during the past seven years to involve student-athletes in discussions of issues at the campus, conference and regional levels.

Much of that success stems from Division III's vote in 2000 to require the creation of conference SAACs -- a proposal originated by the committee -- and the establishment of the regional leadership conferences.

Huchthausen, who has worked on the staffs of the Missouri Valley and Atlantic Coast Conferences since leaving SAAC and has just been named assistant commissioner of the America East Conference, sees SAAC's efforts to develop communication with and among student-athletes at the conference level reflected in the recently formed virtual focus groups headed by members of the Division III Management Council.

Gotham, who serves as assistant director of alumni relations at his alma mater and works with current student-athletes as a CHAMPS-Life Skills instructor and assistant women's basketball coach at Nazareth, said the regional leadership conferences will be important in the future. He congratulated the current committee on the active role it takes in planning and conducting those meetings.

He also praised SAAC for its efforts to participate actively in Future of Division III discussions.

"It's a huge thing to be a part of it, and I don't know if they realize how big it is, or what a turning point it can be for the division," he said. "I look at us and federation; that was a huge turn of events in history, and it was great to be part of that growth process.

"When you are able to step back and look at what you've done, you say, 'Oh wow, that was kind of cool.' That's the way I was, looking back at federation -- that was a pretty big deal that we were part of."

Galgano, who has returned to his alma mater as major gifts officer and interim alumni director, is proud that current SAAC members have retained two notable traits of the committee he served on -- maintaining friendship and respect for each other even when they vigorously disagree on issues, and pride in being student-athletes in Division III.

Huchthausen sees another trait in the current committee that she thinks was an important SAAC attribute during her service.

"I was really surprised, as I think some of my fellow alums were, to see the passion we had in '97 is still present in the committee," she said. "We sort of had a sense of ownership over what's happened, because we were the first group of student-athletes on the committee. We thought we did a good job and laid a foundation for future members, but when you have to let go of something, you don't know if subsequent members are going to be able to carry the torch.

"We were surprised to see they have done that, and done it very well."

Stacie Wentz, former NCAA intern and Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee member and current assistant director of the Shaquille O'Neal CHAMPS/Life Skills Program at Louisiana State University, contributed to this article.