An October 11, 2004, NCAA News article ("Musical chairs -- membership movement among divisions has Association-wide ramifications") points out that while institutions do pay a lot of attention to their own identities, there may need to be equal attention paid to how divisional decisions affect the NCAA family, and that the issue of divisional "boxes" may need broader attention. Kent State University President Carol Cartwright, speaking as NCAA Executive Committee chair, said that such concerns have not been systematically addressed, but that the Executive Committee would be, in fact, the appropriate body for a review. Thus, my proposal is directed to the Executive Committee.

The proposal, in summary, is to eliminate "divisions" except on a sport-by-sport basis.

First of all, the NCAA already has started down this road and, in fact, is well down the road. So-called Division I schools have at least four options for playing football, for example. The range of these options is such that it belies any explanation having to do with "philosophical coherence." Division I-A has 85 scholarships; Division I-AA can have up to 63, while some I-AA schools have no scholarships at all; and, of course, many Division I schools do not play football.

Some Division III schools play ice hockey at the Division I level and, in fact, Division III recently rejected any purist notion of the division by allowing its members to play Division I hockey, despite not otherwise having so-called athletics scholarships. At many Division II schools, hockey and several other sports are played at the Division I level.

It seems there are only relatively weak arguments in support of having "divisions" as basically an all-or-none proposition. One is that it makes it easier to have conference affiliations. Yet, more than a few colleges and universities play hockey or other sports at one level, with other sports at a different level, and simply belong to more than one conference. In other words, this can be -- and is being -- done.

Another reason cited in support of all-or-none divisions is "philosophical coherence." But this, too, is less than compelling, as already suggested above. There is no coherence within current divisions anyway. The largest Division II school has 22,000 students; the smallest has 300. They cover the entire spectrum of philosophical commitments and missions, and thus there isn't any philosophical or any other kind of coherence between and among Division II schools, other than that imposed by the athletics designation. The range of differences is, if anything, even greater in Division I.

A more substantive reason for this structure, and the one that some say will keep this proposal from being seriously considered, is that it serves as a way to limit the number of high-dollar shares of NCAA revenue, mainly from television. That has some credibility since there also are other ways in which it is made more difficult than necessary for schools to move from one classification to another, particularly to the classification that yields the largest shares of television money.

The argument sometimes made for long periods of ineligibility -- another barrier -- imposed on schools seeking to move "up" is that it takes time to grow into Division I. Yet, two years ago, two schools from the North Central Conference, unranked in Division II in their last year of Division II football competition, were ranked in the top 25 their first year in Division I-AA. The need to finance a wholesale move by 20 or more sports -- all at the same time -- is certainly a major barrier in any case. Could we not find another way to move more dollars to the high-cost programs?

So, what about the reasons for decoupling sports from division status -- that is, retain the division status but only on a sport-by-sport basis, rather than on a school-by-school basis?

First and foremost, a loosening-up of the status of an institution would take out the temptations of some schools to move all of their sports up, despite the difficulty of doing so financially. It would make it harder to identify a particular institution as a Division I school or a Division III school. It is an undeniable reality that as long as there are indicators or designations for three divisions -- currently I, II and III -- there will be the impression that Division I is the "best." No amount of talking about it or emphasizing "brand" at other division levels will change the fact that many believe the rank of "I" is something to which all institutions should -- even if they don't -- aspire.

Second, it would allow schools that really do want to move all of their sports to the "highest" athletics level to do so following a business plan that would move one sport, or a few sports, up per year, rather than having to move them all at one time.

Third, it would allow schools to have at least some sports where the focus could be on regional students. Schools would not have to recruit or play all of their sports on a national level.

A recent conference of Division II presidents revealed several sets of conclusions that beg for a new solution to the relatively rigid current classification of NCAA schools. A study by economists Peter and Jonathan Orszag reported at the meeting revealed there was no significant economic or other benefit of schools moving from Division II to Division I, other than the perceived "prestige" of doing so. It was suggested that many schools, in search for visibility and "status," may be diverting resources from faculty salaries, equipment, academic programs and other such important things, to make the move to Division I, where there is a much more significant net loss in funding every year despite much larger sums of money being spent. Every school for which the Orszag brothers had data experienced a decline in net operating revenue excluding institutional support, state support and student activity fees when moving from Division II to Division I. The median decline was almost $2 million.

I won't develop the arguments here addressing the need to do more about the financial arms race in intercollegiate athletics, except to say that the sums of money now being spent could well be distorting even the fundamental paradigms of sport such as sportsmanship and competition. How can it be asserted, when there are hundreds of millions at stake, that it doesn't matter whether you win or lose but "how you play the game"?

A proposal to decouple football from a strict adherence to division status is, as I understand it, now under discussion. The proposal here would simply take that proposal further.

In touting the Division II National Championships Festival, President Brand, in the April 28 edition of The NCAA News, is quoted as saying, "We do not always take the time that we should to recognize and celebrate innovation." He goes on to say, "It is human nature to execute the proven approach rather than finding new and better ways of doing things. It is the safer method, after all -- certainly one that is less likely to be second guessed." He then goes on to say, "Of course it is also the route to organizational malaise. When we fail to innovate, we run an increasing risk of paying more attention to the process itself than to what the process is meant to accomplish."

While those remarks were directed at the championship festival idea, they hold for the concept being proposed here as well. The NCAA's current division structure should be made less rigid.

Charles E. Kupchella is the president of the University of North Dakota, which plays men's and women's ice hockey at the Division I level and other sports in Division II.