National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Working group eyes collaboration on growth issues
|
By Jack Copeland
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
Like neighbors living on the same block, members of a working group exploring ways to accommodate the future growth of the NCAA agreed during an April 25 meeting that cooperation among Divisions I, II and III in addressing each other’s concerns could result in a stronger Association for all.
And discussion among the 12 members of the NCAA Executive Committee Membership Working Group indicated that recent efforts by each of the divisions to tidy up their own houses already may be helping to improve the neighborhood.
Putting aside until this summer the question of whether the NCAA will need to build another house on the block — either by creating a Division IV or subdividing Division III — the working group devoted its first meeting to describing division-specific concerns and understanding their Association-wide impact.
“I thought the discussion was very open, and established a foundation for what we have to do during the coming months,” said Daniel Curran, president of the University of Dayton and working group chair. “We need to reflect on the current and future situation of the entire Association, including challenges in each division.”
Representatives of each division described recent actions to manage institutions’ movement into the NCAA and between divisions — ranging from efforts in Division I to promote more careful consideration by schools of the ramifications of a dramatically increased commitment to athletics, to recent steps by Division II to stake out a distinctive and beneficial community-rooted identity for its members, to Division III’s actions at the 2008 Convention to reduce its recent rate of growth.
Working group members acknowledged Association-wide and division-specific benefits from those actions:
Meanwhile, by taking a legislative path that helped reduce tension among the divisions, Division III appears to be gaining greater cooperation from Divisions I and II in seeking ways of dealing with its own long-term membership growth. Any future growth by the NCAA likely would disproportionately impact Division III and further undermine its ability to maintain a shared philosophy or current levels of membership services and championships access.
Some evidence of the level of cooperation was offered by Division II Presidents Council Chair Charles Ambrose, who requested that the Executive Committee’s instructions for the working group be modified to remove language stating that any actions taken to address membership issues should “do no harm” to Division II.
Ambrose said Division II wishes to play a “critical role” alongside Divisions I and III in achieving Association-wide solutions for growth issues, and removing the language should eliminate any impression that Division II is focusing only on its own concerns.
Building models
Although working group members saw progress in each division’s recent fix-up efforts, they also acknowledged they still must respond later this year to the Executive Committee’s charge to consider establishing a new division or subdivision — both by studying reasons for doing so and by drawing up what amount to “blueprints” for a new structure.
They also agreed they need much more information to fulfill that charge.
In addition to seeking more information about what types of institutions might seek NCAA membership in the future or consider a move from one division to another, the group will focus on identifying attributes that would encourage an institution to select a new membership classification — whether based on institutional philosophy, degree of financial commitment to athletics, level of support for membership services and championships, or other criteria.
Curran suggested the group also needs to share as much information as possible with the membership, in order to generate ideas and discussion in all three divisions as the group begins to construct the models.
“We’re going to have to educate,” he told the group, “and also to engage some people who might otherwise sit on the sidelines.”
The working group discussed various ways of distributing information, including a Web site containing information collected by the group, dissemination of materials such as question-and-answer documents, and interactive Webcasts to discuss proposals and encourage questions.
The group’s next meeting is scheduled August 8, and plans call for models for a division or subdivision to be created in time for discussion at the 2008 Convention.
“I think we have a reasonable charge to sort through these ideas and bring something forward for the entire Association to consider at the January meetings,” Curran said.
And discussion among the 12 members of the NCAA Executive Committee Membership Working Group indicated that recent efforts by each of the divisions to tidy up their own houses already may be helping to improve the neighborhood.
Putting aside until this summer the question of whether the NCAA will need to build another house on the block — either by creating a Division IV or subdividing Division III — the working group devoted its first meeting to describing division-specific concerns and understanding their Association-wide impact.
“I thought the discussion was very open, and established a foundation for what we have to do during the coming months,” said Daniel Curran, president of the University of Dayton and working group chair. “We need to reflect on the current and future situation of the entire Association, including challenges in each division.”
Representatives of each division described recent actions to manage institutions’ movement into the NCAA and between divisions — ranging from efforts in Division I to promote more careful consideration by schools of the ramifications of a dramatically increased commitment to athletics, to recent steps by Division II to stake out a distinctive and beneficial community-rooted identity for its members, to Division III’s actions at the 2008 Convention to reduce its recent rate of growth.
Working group members acknowledged Association-wide and division-specific benefits from those actions:
- Division I’s efforts may cause Division II institutions considering reclassification to take more time to study financial as well as other ramifications of a move — and to carefully consider whether the attempt to move to a more publicly visible competitive level outweighs benefits of staying put.
- Division II is taking its own productive steps to slow the reclassification of schools and also attract compatible new members, through research-based programs to distinguish Division II from the other divisions and a study of a possible cost benefit to institutions of adopting the division’s “partial scholarship” financial aid model.
- Division III is addressing its own rapid growth, in the short term, through legislative actions establishing higher standards for gaining and maintaining membership — but will be doing so without completely cutting off the opportunity to join the division.
Meanwhile, by taking a legislative path that helped reduce tension among the divisions, Division III appears to be gaining greater cooperation from Divisions I and II in seeking ways of dealing with its own long-term membership growth. Any future growth by the NCAA likely would disproportionately impact Division III and further undermine its ability to maintain a shared philosophy or current levels of membership services and championships access.
Some evidence of the level of cooperation was offered by Division II Presidents Council Chair Charles Ambrose, who requested that the Executive Committee’s instructions for the working group be modified to remove language stating that any actions taken to address membership issues should “do no harm” to Division II.
Ambrose said Division II wishes to play a “critical role” alongside Divisions I and III in achieving Association-wide solutions for growth issues, and removing the language should eliminate any impression that Division II is focusing only on its own concerns.
Building models
Although working group members saw progress in each division’s recent fix-up efforts, they also acknowledged they still must respond later this year to the Executive Committee’s charge to consider establishing a new division or subdivision — both by studying reasons for doing so and by drawing up what amount to “blueprints” for a new structure.
They also agreed they need much more information to fulfill that charge.
In addition to seeking more information about what types of institutions might seek NCAA membership in the future or consider a move from one division to another, the group will focus on identifying attributes that would encourage an institution to select a new membership classification — whether based on institutional philosophy, degree of financial commitment to athletics, level of support for membership services and championships, or other criteria.
Curran suggested the group also needs to share as much information as possible with the membership, in order to generate ideas and discussion in all three divisions as the group begins to construct the models.
“We’re going to have to educate,” he told the group, “and also to engage some people who might otherwise sit on the sidelines.”
The working group discussed various ways of distributing information, including a Web site containing information collected by the group, dissemination of materials such as question-and-answer documents, and interactive Webcasts to discuss proposals and encourage questions.
The group’s next meeting is scheduled August 8, and plans call for models for a division or subdivision to be created in time for discussion at the 2008 Convention.
“I think we have a reasonable charge to sort through these ideas and bring something forward for the entire Association to consider at the January meetings,” Curran said.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy