The Division III Membership Committee is supporting a full review of alternatives to implementing a membership cap as an NCAA Executive Committee working group prepares to study division-specific membership issues and their Association-wide ramifications.

The committee, which met January 26-27 in Phoenix, forwarded a list of options for review by the working group after the Division III membership voted during the recent Convention to refer the North Coast Athletic Conference’s proposed cap to that group of institutional presidents representing all three divisions.

The options include:

* Consider further limiting the annual class size of provisional members to more closely match the number of institutions that leave Division III — perhaps one or two institutions a year. Division III currently is including six institutions in each year’s provisional-membership class.

* Consider assessing institutions’ readiness to comply with the Division III philosophy statement and requiring compliance with most or all current re- quirements for active membership — including with the five-sport (or recently adopted six-sport)/three-season requirement, contest and participant minimums, and successful submission of the annual financial aid report — before they enter the provisional-membership process. (The committee also suggested it may be appropriate under that scenario to reduce the current four-year provisional-membership process.)

* Review the NCAA division structure long-term, noting the Division III membership’s opposition to subdivision as expressed in Future of Division III membership survey results.

* Review resources currently available to Division III — including the current guarantee of 3.18 percent of the Association’s annual budget as well as programs and services provided by the national office — in determining an optimal size for the division. The committee indicated such a review should determine the actual cost to the division of each member, and the impact of adding new members. The committee also supported study of the most appropriate championship structure for the division, based on its philosophy statement (noting that Future of Division III survey results indicated overwhelming membership support for the current structure).

* Incorporate demographic data and trends in higher education — such as increasing enrollments and transitions by two-year institutions into four-year schools and single-gender institutions into coeducational schools — during the working group’s review.

* Consider more aggressive review of active members to determine their commitment to the Division III philosophy and to complying with membership and legislative requirements, noting that it may not be justifiable to retain active members at the expense of potential members who may fit better within the division.

* Consider increasing membership dues to ease constraints on Division III resources and services and to better pursue long-term options for addressing membership issues. The committee noted a discrepancy between dues for NCAA and conference membership.

The working group was instructed by the Executive Committee to respond with any recommendations by January 2007. The Membership Committee noted that, as a practical matter, the working group should respond by summer 2006 to give the Division III membership an opportunity to submit related legislative proposals by the July 15 legislation deadline for the 2007 Convention.

As part of its ongoing responsibility for reviewing requirements for provisional and reclassifying institutions, the committee also discussed ways of improving preparations by institutions considering membership.

It reviewed a Division I requirement that exploratory members submit a strategic plan for achieving membership and proposed a similar approach in Division III. That plan, which the committee labeled a “membership viability statement,” would be included as part of the agenda for the annual meeting of Division III exploratory members and would be made part of the application for provisional membership.

Self-study guide

The committee, following up on the membership’s adoption of a Conference Self-Study Guide (CSSG) requirement during the recent Convention, also continued its work to present a draft of the CSSG document to the Division III Management and Presidents Councils for review during their spring meetings.

The CSSG’s purpose is to promote discussion among conference members about shared philosophy and practices beyond championships access, through review of subjects ranging from conference philosophy and institutional missions to governance structures and compliance activities, among others.

Three committee members — chair William Mandel of Western New England College, Chris Martin of the College Conference of Illinois & Wisconsin, and Chris Ragsdale of the University of La Verne — were appointed as members of a working group to continue refining the language, content and format of the document.

In another action, the committee conducted a review of penalties for failure to submit various required institutional reports, and asked the Management Council to consider amending Bylaw 30.1 to apply the same  penalty for late submission of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System Graduation-Rates Survey (IPEDS) as for late submission of the annual financial aid electronic report.