I polled coaches in my New England region (informally and formally) who sat in the coaches meeting (as I did) at last November's Division III championships. I also polled other coaches in meetings before and after that time. My concern was whether there indeed was substantial support for the Division III track and field subcommittee's decision from a majority of coaches.

Their answers only confused me further.

Support for the move from 5,000 meters to 6,000 meters fell between 25 to 35 percent, and most remembered the discussion at the national meeting being rushed because of limited time -- and somewhat in favor of keeping the women's distance at 5,000 meters. More importantly, while the subcommittee's decision was based on survey results, it appears that a significant number of the smaller, less competitive schools in New England don't recall ever receiving or returning any survey.

From my own experience, I recall and know of support for the change from a few "perennially competitive" schools in several regions. I am one of those who opposed the move in the survey and in each meeting. My concerns are: (1) the "artificial" distance of 6,000 meters (there is no regular comparative standard for the distance before or after the women run in Division III); (2) the fact that the additional time the 6,000 distance adds to meets and training will adversely affect student-athlete academic time; (3) the burden of reconfiguring courses in a time of "rapidly shrinking available course space"; (4) the reality that small schools will likely lose runners from their already small talent pools; and (5) the fact that this may lead to the Division III men's distance being pushed to 10,000 meters (up from 8,000).

At a school of 1,500 students and 800-plus acres of training trails, it is an annual struggle to build a team around eight to 10 runners where two or three suffer with stress injuries. I know these women are capable of coping with the physical and mental demands put before them, but this isn't about coping or capability. I strongly believe that Division III athletics has an overriding responsibility for participation. It would appear that we are myopic with the push to align and compare ourselves to Divisions I and II schools and their standards. To paraphrase one coach in my region, "those schools would do better to seek guidance and example from our division."

The percentage of institutions that responded to the survey should be made available. If it is below 66 percent, I suggest the survey is an invalid source to use when considering the change. In other words, if the subcommittee relied on only one-third of member institutions, and if those were generally larger or highly competitive schools, you basically have the elite programs determining policy for the entire division. Smaller schools aren't looking for help in catching up with elite programs, we ask only that our hard work is not hindered by unleveling the playing field. What this whole episode has done is chip away at my belief that equal voices and fairness apply to the majority of the Division III rank and file.