The Division I Leadership Council began its discussion of membership requirements at its November 5 meeting in Indianapolis, developing a framework around which future conversations will take place. The members acknowledged that the topic is complex and will likely take time to evolve.

More than a year ago, the Division I Board of Directors recognized that the flow of new member institution into the division had become almost unmanageable. The Board of Directors implemented a moratorium on Division I membership and movement within the Division I subdivisions at that time and asked the Leadership Council to study the division’s membership standards and define the characteristics of successful Division I members.

Wednesday’s discussion, with input from longtime Management Council membership subcommittee member Greg Sankey and Management Council governance subcommittee member Rich Ensor, indicated that the “brand” of Division I – the cachet of membership in the NCAA’s most high-profile division – is one of the chief reasons institutions seek membership. At the same time, Council members said, the influx of new members strains the division’s ability to provide full services and consistent competitive opportunities to its members.

Balancing the desire to allow access to the division with a need to reinforce its brand will help guide future discussion about membership requirements.

The group will look to other constituents, including conference commissioners, for input as well as it examines options for future membership requirements. The Council also will look to the Administration Cabinet, which is charged with monitoring reclassification issues and provisional programs for institutions seeking membership.

In other business at the November 5 meeting, NCAA Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion Charlotte Westerhaus provided the Council with statistics regarding the diversity of both Division I athletics as a whole and the gender and ethnic minority representation within the newly reorganized governance structure.

While the governance structure clearly has met and even exceeded its minimum representation requirements of 35 percent female and 20 percent ethnic minority members, data show that the rate of representation is unlikely to be sustained because the diversity in athletics administration is not growing.

Westerhaus encouraged the group to consider broad-based approaches to increasing the numbers of ethnic minorities and women in the collegiate athletics workforce. She said that an expansive strategy was necessary to positively influence diversity in Division I.

The group acknowledged that neither issue will be resolved in the near future; however, it is committed to constructing project plans to address membership standards and diversity within the governance structure.