The debate on whether centralized programming or distributions to individual schools is the best way to serve student-athlete welfare tends to differ along division lines.

Most Division I schools would prefer to have as much revenue returned as possible because they have the infrastructure in place to administer the programs, whereas many Divisions II and III schools do not.

"The contention is that larger schools want the money themselves to enhance their programs, while the smaller schools with smaller infrastructures -- and that need programming help from the Association-wide initiatives -- want the money and those programs centralized," said Daniel Boggan Jr., NCAA senior vice-president.

Smaller schools, particularly in Division III, don't see themselves in a position to deliver those kinds of programs as well as they are delivered in Division I. Only half of Division III conferences, in fact, even have full-time commissioners.

The problem is that greater demand from Divisions II and III can lead to a greater assertion from Division I that it is the one funding the programs. Typically, Association-wide funds not spent on programming end up in Division I pockets.

Representatives from Division I institutions also contend that balanced budgets are required more in Division I than in the other two divisions.

"If it's true that these feelings divide along division lines," said University of Maryland, College Park, athletics director Deborah A. Yow, "I would make the assumption that this scenario develops because a larger percentage of Divisions II and III budgets are in fact funded through student fees, so that the issue of balancing a budget perhaps is not as critical for them as it would be in Division I."

Reducing dependency

Gladys Styles Johnston, chancellor at the University of Nebraska at Kearney and chair of the Division II Presidents Council, said that Division II has taken steps to alleviate a dependency on Association-wide initiatives while at the same time meeting the needs of its lightly funded membership.

She cited the division's Strategic Alliance Matching Grant Enhancement Program as an example of using the division's own money to address a broad concern. The program is designed to help Division II conferences and institutions by providing matching funds for conference or institution programs that are enhancing athletics opportunities for women and ethnic minorities.

"Division II has shown its commitment by putting up its own money," she said. "We've said this was a high priority, and while it also should be a high priority for the Association, we put our money right there to demonstrate it.

"We've also made a conscientious decision that more money go into some of our programs rather than to overhead and administrative costs. We have the staff at the national office administer the diversity grant program because they're in a better position to do so. If we tried to put that in a conference or campus office, probably one half of that money would be for salaries and not for the program."

But Johnston also said that in some cases, Division II schools want more autonomy in how they allocate funds.

"For other programs, like the academic enhancement programs, it makes sense to send the dollars to member schools or conferences because specific needs vary from region to region. The key when the money is sent back is that it be for specific objectives that are guided by our strategic plan so that we can have some measure of accountability."

Division III Presidents Council Chair Ann Die, president at Hendrix College, also endorsed a mixed approach for addressing student-athlete welfare.

"Division III favors a multitude of approaches to provide better athletics opportunities at the Division III level," Die said. "And by opportunities I mean not just who gets to go to championships, but what is the value added to the student's life by participating in Division III athletics.

"In Division III there are many voices speaking for a variety of approaches and not necessarily the majority say they favor one model over another. It's a matter of what are we trying to do and what do we think best helps the student-athlete."

All three divisions have been asked by the NCAA Executive Committee to determine a three-year budget plan based on the new television contract, which may shed some light on whether programming issues do divide along division lines.

But even if the answer is that it's a federated issue, at least the final say from the Executive Committee on where the money goes will have input from Divisions II and III.

"The new structure gives us the opportunity to look at everything fresh, which also gives us the chance to evaluate whether programs ought to be implemented on individual campuses and conferences or be conducted Association-wide," Die said.

-- Gary T. Brown