Following a year studying ways of dealing with the NCAA's growth and its byproducts, the Executive Committee Working Group on Membership formally opened a process during an Association-wide Convention forum Saturday to obtain feedback on how to proceed.

The working group -- which last year suggested that creation of a new division or subdividing Division III may be the best way of addressing continuing membership growth -- now is seeking feedback from all three divisions on a model for a new division that recently was recommended by a Division III working group, as well as for other approaches.

"We are at a point in our discussions where it would be beneficial to hear membership feedback on these concepts, and general preferences about these options, other models or, of course, maintaining the status quo," said Dan Curran, president of the University of Dayton and Executive Committee working group chair.

After speakers provided historical context for the current discussions and detailed growth trends, Curran pointed to an increase in membership of 300 institutions since the NCAA divided into three divisions in 1973 -- and to recent events prompted by growth in all three divisions -- as factors behind the study.

"The reason for this self-assessment is clear," he said. "Over the past few years, there has been a confluence of events that has fostered this Association-wide discussion, including debates in Division I about how to distinguish those institutions that compete for berths in bowl games and those that seek to qualify for NCAA championship play, attempts to shrink competitive gaps in Division II, and legislative initiatives in Division III to more clearly define its mission within the Association."

John Fry, president of Franklin & Marshall College and chair of the Division III Presidents Council, told forum participants that Division III considered its own solution to growth -- a membership cap -- but said that approach "would have been a mistake."

"We don't have the luxury of acting divisionally," said Fry, who serves on both the Executive Committee and Division III working groups. "We are at a point where we must act as an Association."

Curran said the Division III working group's model for a new division seeks to open up a new membership option that features "broader institutional sports sponsorship and an educational experience where athletics plays a less dominant role," more opportunity for student-athletes to be involved in campus activities, more accountability for adhering to the division's philosophy, and more presidential oversight of athletics.

He also suggested those types of criteria may be more appropriate for creating a division than others that have been suggested to the working groups.

"Such notions as subdividing by region or by size of the institution were presented as simple options for reorganization," Curran said. "Another was to reorganize based on athletics success as measured by points accumulated in the Director's Cup or some other such measure. Yet another suggestion was to reorganize solely on the basis of sports sponsorship.

"Each of the measures, however, contained two flaws. First, they would have resulted in institutions being assigned to one category or another, thus denying the basic concept of self-determination. Second, they would do little to address the basic differences in perspective on the role of athletics in the academy that has provided much of the impetus for these discussions."

During a brief comment period following Curran's presentation, Keene State College President Helen Giles-Gee questioned whether Division III is being asked to bear the brunt of solving membership growth through a solution that primarily impacts that division's membership.

"I don't see this putting all the weight on one division," Curran replied. "We're asking all three divisions to examine how they will weigh in on these issues in the future."

An athletics director, Jim Nelson of Suffolk University, asked whether there is another option for addressing growth-related issues if a new division is proposed but rejected at the 2009 Convention.

Curran responded the membership will have substantial opportunities before then to make its views known, including through a survey that will be conducted later this winter, and pledged the working group would take seriously any alternative approaches suggested through that process before finalizing any proposal.

But he also suggested, based on discussions with Division III presidents earlier during the day of the forum, that support for some kind of restructuring is growing as the reasons for considering it become better understood.

"In the course of the next couple of days, I hope everyone (in Division III) and certainly in the Association will more clearly understand the challenges," he said.

More discussion of those challenges -- as well as an opportunity for delegates to share views about membership issues in roundtable discussions -- is planned during today's Division III issues forum. Then, following voting tomorrow on legislative proposals in the Division III business session, delegates will be divided into three groups and encouraged to react to the information they've received as the feedback process begins in earnest.