National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Association gets down to business - Division III controls membership growth
|
By Jack Copeland
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
ORLANDO, Florida — Now that Division III has endorsed its Presidents Council’s plan for managing membership growth in at least the short term, attention turns to possible outcomes of an Association-wide effort to deal more conclusively with the issue.
During Division III’s January 8 business session at the 101st Convention, delegates strongly supported two proposals originated by the Division III Membership Committee and sponsored by the Presidents Council to significantly slow membership growth.
More than three-quarters of voting institutions supported the proposals to further limit acceptance of new members annually by Division III, while also holding current members more accountable for the division’s standards.
Following those actions, the North Coast Athletic Conference withdrew a proposal to implement a hard cap on the size of the division, and by doing so effectively focused the membership’s attention on the Association-wide discussions — which possibly will lead to changes in the NCAA’s membership structure.
The Division III governance structure took both symbolic and formal steps toward exploring those options during the Convention by sponsoring roundtable discussions of the issue among delegates at the Division III issues forum January 7 and by appointing members to an Association-wide working group charged among other things with studying two specific approaches to changing the membership structure — creation of a fourth division or subdividing Division III.
The governance structure also formed a Division III-specific working group consisting of selected members of the Membership Committee and various membership constituencies, and charged it with inserting the division’s perspective into development of structural models.
Tent stretched thin
The forum discussion was introduced by incoming Presidents Council Chair John Fry of Franklin & Marshall College as “preparation for what will be the first of two years of public conversations regarding the future membership structure, not only in Division III but the entire NCAA.”
By the time the NCAC withdrew its cap proposal 24 hours later, it was clear that Division III leaders anticipate movement toward some sort of structural change within the next two years.
“Effectively we’ve reached a practical limit in terms of our ability to provide membership services and championships access,” Fry told delegates during the issues forum. “This tent is simply stretched too thin, and we need to address this in the short term and for the future.
“Long-term, we have some very significant and fundamental issues to resolve, and in my mind, status quo is not an alternative — it simply will not work.”
Fry discussed work by the seven-member presidential working group that was formed last year by the NCAA Executive Committee to study not only Division III’s growth but inter-division migration — particularly, the movement of longtime members of Division II into Division I.
That presidential group, which soon will be expanded to include not only presidents but representation of other constituencies in all three divisions, began focusing on creation of a fourth division or subdivision of Division III as possible solutions after reviewing data that indicated how Division III institutions’ positions on various philosophical issues and also their practical circumstances could help predict how the NCAA membership might restructure itself.
In roundtable discussions of the possibility of restructuring that followed Fry’s presentation, however, indications were that the membership has many questions about the best way to proceed.
At one table, a delegate asked whether the recent Future of Division III reform effort eliminated the need to divide Division III, but others at the table noted that philosophical differences remain evident among current members.
At another table, concern centered on how much input the membership will have into any decision to pursue restructuring.
Fry reported that a membership survey likely will be conducted in early fall 2007 to further solicit opinion on restructuring options, and that results of that survey and models for creating a fourth division or subdividing Division III should be circulated later in the fall — in time for discussion at the 2008 Convention.
Comments from the roundtable discussions were collected for review by the Division III Management and Presidents Councils, Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, and other groups that will be involved in the coming year’s deliberations.
Those groups include Division III’s representatives on the expanded Association-wide working group, as well as the division-specific working group formed to deal with “nuts and bolts” issues impacting Division III that would arise from any restructuring effort.
Five Division III representatives — including Fry and incoming Division III Management Council Chair Val Cushman of Randolph College — will represent Division III on the expanded Association-wide group. Also representing the division will be John Nazarian, president of Rhode Island College; Dick Strockbine, director of athletics at the University of Dallas; and Kris Hall, director of athletics at Bard College.
The division-specific working group will include those five representatives as ex officio members, as well as selected members of the Division III Membership Committee and representatives of various membership constituencies — including a representative of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.
Those members are Chris Martin, commissioner of the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin and chair of the Membership Committee; Debbie DeAngelis, director of athletics at California State University, East Bay, which holds dual membership in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics; Mark Majeski, director of athetics at Willamette College and a Membership Committee member; Kevin McHugh, athletics director at The College of New Jersey and vice chair of the Management Council; Rudy Keeling, director of athletics at Emerson College and a Management Council member; Kay Whitley, director of athletics at Sul Ross State University and a Management Council member; Dick Rasmussen, executive secretary of the University Athletic Association and former chair of the Membership Committee; Dan Fulks, faculty athletics representative at Transylvania University and a Management Council member; Stuart Gulley, president of LaGrange College and a Management Council member; and Kayla Hinkley of the University of New England, who represents the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee on the Management Council.
The division-specific working group will report to the Membership Committee, which in turn can report recommendations to the Management and Presidents Councils. The Presidents Council ultimately would be responsible for sponsoring legislation to enact any concept requiring approval by the Division III membership.
‘Manageable’ growth
The working groups now have more time to pursue that work, thanks to the membership’s approval of Proposal Nos. 9 and 10 and the NCAC’s withdrawal of its cap proposal.
Wartburg College President Jack Ohle, a Management Council member, said Proposal No. 9 — which will admit a maximum of only four new institutions annually and require full compliance with all of the division’s regulations during the first year of provisional or reclassifying membership — “should verify that all institutions joining Division III align strongly with the values and philosophy of the division, and that growth of the division occurs at a manageable pace.”
Meanwhile, Fry told delegates that Proposal No. 10 — which would step up monitoring of current members’ compliance with requirements in areas ranging from sports sponsorship to attendance at Conventions and regional rules seminars — should prompt re-evaluation by institutions of their commitment to Division III membership.
“In light of all the growth challenges facing the division, we cannot afford to retain institutions that do not take their membership in this Association seriously, or otherwise take for granted the membership that benefits us all,” he said.
The new requirements for provisional membership were approved by 88 percent of voting institutions (367-51, with four abstentions), while the requirements for active members generated support from 78 percent of institutions (328-88, with six abstentions).
Those actions set the stage for the NCAC’s withdrawal of the cap proposal — and the shift in Division III’s attention from short-term, division-specific solutions for membership growth to achieving cooperation from the other divisions in finding Association-wide solutions.
Those solutions need to come quickly, said Earlham College President Douglas Bennett in explaining the NCAC’s decision to withdraw the cap proposal — and to advocate a restructuring effort.
“This problem of Division III being too large will only become worse if we continue not to attend to it, particularly with the prospect of more NAIA members coming our way in larger numbers,” Bennett said. “We need to restructure, and we need to do that soon.”
He said the adoption of Proposal Nos. 9 and 10, along with a Division III moratorium on new members that will remain in effect while the Association-wide working group completes its work, are positive steps that reveal a “stronger sense of urgency from the Presidents Council and a stronger commitment to address this issue.” But he said that urgency needs to continue during the coming year.
“We’re still a little concerned,” he said. “The process is moving slowly — too slowly, I think, in our view.”
During Division III’s January 8 business session at the 101st Convention, delegates strongly supported two proposals originated by the Division III Membership Committee and sponsored by the Presidents Council to significantly slow membership growth.
More than three-quarters of voting institutions supported the proposals to further limit acceptance of new members annually by Division III, while also holding current members more accountable for the division’s standards.
Following those actions, the North Coast Athletic Conference withdrew a proposal to implement a hard cap on the size of the division, and by doing so effectively focused the membership’s attention on the Association-wide discussions — which possibly will lead to changes in the NCAA’s membership structure.
The Division III governance structure took both symbolic and formal steps toward exploring those options during the Convention by sponsoring roundtable discussions of the issue among delegates at the Division III issues forum January 7 and by appointing members to an Association-wide working group charged among other things with studying two specific approaches to changing the membership structure — creation of a fourth division or subdividing Division III.
The governance structure also formed a Division III-specific working group consisting of selected members of the Membership Committee and various membership constituencies, and charged it with inserting the division’s perspective into development of structural models.
Tent stretched thin
The forum discussion was introduced by incoming Presidents Council Chair John Fry of Franklin & Marshall College as “preparation for what will be the first of two years of public conversations regarding the future membership structure, not only in Division III but the entire NCAA.”
By the time the NCAC withdrew its cap proposal 24 hours later, it was clear that Division III leaders anticipate movement toward some sort of structural change within the next two years.
“Effectively we’ve reached a practical limit in terms of our ability to provide membership services and championships access,” Fry told delegates during the issues forum. “This tent is simply stretched too thin, and we need to address this in the short term and for the future.
“Long-term, we have some very significant and fundamental issues to resolve, and in my mind, status quo is not an alternative — it simply will not work.”
Fry discussed work by the seven-member presidential working group that was formed last year by the NCAA Executive Committee to study not only Division III’s growth but inter-division migration — particularly, the movement of longtime members of Division II into Division I.
That presidential group, which soon will be expanded to include not only presidents but representation of other constituencies in all three divisions, began focusing on creation of a fourth division or subdivision of Division III as possible solutions after reviewing data that indicated how Division III institutions’ positions on various philosophical issues and also their practical circumstances could help predict how the NCAA membership might restructure itself.
In roundtable discussions of the possibility of restructuring that followed Fry’s presentation, however, indications were that the membership has many questions about the best way to proceed.
At one table, a delegate asked whether the recent Future of Division III reform effort eliminated the need to divide Division III, but others at the table noted that philosophical differences remain evident among current members.
At another table, concern centered on how much input the membership will have into any decision to pursue restructuring.
Fry reported that a membership survey likely will be conducted in early fall 2007 to further solicit opinion on restructuring options, and that results of that survey and models for creating a fourth division or subdividing Division III should be circulated later in the fall — in time for discussion at the 2008 Convention.
Comments from the roundtable discussions were collected for review by the Division III Management and Presidents Councils, Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, and other groups that will be involved in the coming year’s deliberations.
Those groups include Division III’s representatives on the expanded Association-wide working group, as well as the division-specific working group formed to deal with “nuts and bolts” issues impacting Division III that would arise from any restructuring effort.
Five Division III representatives — including Fry and incoming Division III Management Council Chair Val Cushman of Randolph College — will represent Division III on the expanded Association-wide group. Also representing the division will be John Nazarian, president of Rhode Island College; Dick Strockbine, director of athletics at the University of Dallas; and Kris Hall, director of athletics at Bard College.
The division-specific working group will include those five representatives as ex officio members, as well as selected members of the Division III Membership Committee and representatives of various membership constituencies — including a representative of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.
Those members are Chris Martin, commissioner of the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin and chair of the Membership Committee; Debbie DeAngelis, director of athletics at California State University, East Bay, which holds dual membership in the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics; Mark Majeski, director of athetics at Willamette College and a Membership Committee member; Kevin McHugh, athletics director at The College of New Jersey and vice chair of the Management Council; Rudy Keeling, director of athletics at Emerson College and a Management Council member; Kay Whitley, director of athletics at Sul Ross State University and a Management Council member; Dick Rasmussen, executive secretary of the University Athletic Association and former chair of the Membership Committee; Dan Fulks, faculty athletics representative at Transylvania University and a Management Council member; Stuart Gulley, president of LaGrange College and a Management Council member; and Kayla Hinkley of the University of New England, who represents the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee on the Management Council.
The division-specific working group will report to the Membership Committee, which in turn can report recommendations to the Management and Presidents Councils. The Presidents Council ultimately would be responsible for sponsoring legislation to enact any concept requiring approval by the Division III membership.
‘Manageable’ growth
The working groups now have more time to pursue that work, thanks to the membership’s approval of Proposal Nos. 9 and 10 and the NCAC’s withdrawal of its cap proposal.
Wartburg College President Jack Ohle, a Management Council member, said Proposal No. 9 — which will admit a maximum of only four new institutions annually and require full compliance with all of the division’s regulations during the first year of provisional or reclassifying membership — “should verify that all institutions joining Division III align strongly with the values and philosophy of the division, and that growth of the division occurs at a manageable pace.”
Meanwhile, Fry told delegates that Proposal No. 10 — which would step up monitoring of current members’ compliance with requirements in areas ranging from sports sponsorship to attendance at Conventions and regional rules seminars — should prompt re-evaluation by institutions of their commitment to Division III membership.
“In light of all the growth challenges facing the division, we cannot afford to retain institutions that do not take their membership in this Association seriously, or otherwise take for granted the membership that benefits us all,” he said.
The new requirements for provisional membership were approved by 88 percent of voting institutions (367-51, with four abstentions), while the requirements for active members generated support from 78 percent of institutions (328-88, with six abstentions).
Those actions set the stage for the NCAC’s withdrawal of the cap proposal — and the shift in Division III’s attention from short-term, division-specific solutions for membership growth to achieving cooperation from the other divisions in finding Association-wide solutions.
Those solutions need to come quickly, said Earlham College President Douglas Bennett in explaining the NCAC’s decision to withdraw the cap proposal — and to advocate a restructuring effort.
“This problem of Division III being too large will only become worse if we continue not to attend to it, particularly with the prospect of more NAIA members coming our way in larger numbers,” Bennett said. “We need to restructure, and we need to do that soon.”
He said the adoption of Proposal Nos. 9 and 10, along with a Division III moratorium on new members that will remain in effect while the Association-wide working group completes its work, are positive steps that reveal a “stronger sense of urgency from the Presidents Council and a stronger commitment to address this issue.” But he said that urgency needs to continue during the coming year.
“We’re still a little concerned,” he said. “The process is moving slowly — too slowly, I think, in our view.”
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy