Group also supports new membership requirement penalty structure

Jul 21, 2010 8:41:52 AM

The Division III Management Council is endorsing a concept that would require an institution to be "core" in only one conference and would preclude the formation of so-called umbrella conferences in the future.

If the idea gains momentum after further review, the matter could emerge as a legislative proposal for the 2012 Convention and be effective beginning in September 2013.

Meeting Monday and Tuesday, the Council supported changing the current definition of "core" to preclude the formation of an overarching "umbrella" conference with two sub-conferences in which schools are core in both the umbrella conference and the sub-conference. In such arrangements, the umbrella conference is eligible to gain two automatic-qualification spots.

One such conference – the Middle Atlantic Conference (with sub-conferences Commonwealth and Freedom) – has been in place for the last decade, and the proposal being considered would not affect that arrangement. However, as more schools and conferences inquire about forming similar umbrella leagues – and as Division III implements its new strategic-positioning platform – some Division III governance groups are wondering whether the umbrella arrangement best serves the division in light of the current expectations of conference membership.

Current Umbrella Model

Proposed Model

Under the proposal being considered, a conference would have to have four core members and at least seven total members (either core or affiliate) sponsoring a sport to gain automatic qualification to the championship in that sport. But an institution could be a core member in only one conference.

Council members believe that would help stabilize conference membership and require institutions to think more strategically about alignments other than for the purpose of acquiring AQ.

In addition, the core designation could be used to assign accountability for conference requirements and benefits (grant money, voting privileges, SAAC representation and Conference Self-Study Guide). That currently is not precisely legislated for alternative conference models, particularly one that is structured under an "umbrella."

The amendment would eliminate the possibility of the "umbrella" conference model since it would not be possible for an institution to be considered core in one of the sub-conferences as well as the overarching umbrella.

The Division III Championships Committee endorsed the same idea at is meeting in June.

The Management Council also considered two other options, including maintaining the status quo or simply awarding conferences with at least 16 schools two AQs. But members thought the second option could cause membership challenges for smaller conferences and may encourage realignment solely for the purpose of automatic qualification.

"While the existing umbrella conference isn't necessarily a problem, once other leagues begin to pursue the idea, it's prudent to decide if that is consistent with the Division III philosophy," said Management Council chair Lynn Oberbillig, the athletics director at Smith College. "That's why we are talking about this now. It has potential division-wide ramifications."

In a related matter, the Council approved noncontroversial legislation that increases the composition requirement for conferences to attain active membership from six institutions to seven (effective September 1, 2012). The Council considered combining this with the one-core concept as a package moving forward but instead voted on it as noncontroversial legislation to indicate to the membership its support of the seven-member requirement for AQ.

No current active member conference has fewer than seven members.

Penalty structure for membership requirements

In addition to dealing with the one-core issue, the Management Council also backed a concept from the Division III Membership Committee that changes the penalty structure when member institutions violate one or more of the basic membership requirements (sports sponsorship, Convention attendance, Regional Rules Seminar attendance and completion of the Institutional Self-Study Guide).

The recommendation treats the sports-sponsorship prong on a higher plane. In the new structure, any membership-requirement violation that occurs after an institution has already been placed on probation for sports sponsorship will result in an escalated, progressive penalty designation (that is, restricted status; dismissal from the division).

The current penalty structure holds for institutions that trigger probationary status for either failure to complete the ISSG or attend the NCAA Convention and Regional Rules Seminars – they remain subject to an escalated penalty if they fail to comply with the same membership requirement again in three years. (Those schools also could earn a second strike for sports-sponsorship violations as well, even if they are earned after an ISSG or attendance violation.)

Current legislation describes three distinct membership-requirements penalty tracks an institution may be on at any one time. For example, an institution may be on probation for sports-sponsorship noncompliance while concurrently being on probation for failure to complete its ISSG. Any second violation is considered a "strike" within the respective membership requirement track but does not affect an institution's penalty status within any other membership requirement track. In other words, each requirement and associated penalty operates independent of the other requirements and penalties.

Management Council members believe that combining the different penalty tracks into one structure (click This portlet is temporarily disabled.