The “one-for-all” spirit of NCAA governance in the old days became “one-for-one,” “two-for-two” and “three-for-three” after restructuring. While the concept emanated as a Division I proposal, Divisions II and III worked hard to gain from the transition as well. Kenneth “Buzz” Shaw believes that happened.

“The new structure is a vehicle by which Divisions II and III can really deal with their own issues. And they’ve taken it seriously. They actually have more issues on the table than they used to,” said the former Syracuse University chancellor who co-chaired the Division I Task Force to Review the NCAA Membership Structure.

Chairs of the Divisions II and III task forces during that time also believe the end game was good for their constituents.

“The leadership in Division III, both at the presidential level and the Management Council, has been able to implement the philosophy we think is important to athletics. For the most part, restructuring has worked,” said University of Redlands Chancellor James Appleton, who along with Dan Bridges — now the athletics director at California State University, Los Angeles — led the Division III oversight group in the mid-1990s.

Appleton’s Division II counterpart Lynn Dorn, director of women’s athletics at North Dakota State University (she co-chaired with then-University of North Florida President Adam Herbert), said restructuring gave Division II an opportunity for progressive thinking. Programming such as the National Championships Festival, the Make-A-Wish fund-raising initiative and grant pro-

grams that are unique to the division are what she called “outgrowths of what at the time was a bold decision to deregulate the NCAA and allow for division autonomy.”

“We didn’t see restructuring as a victory or defeat, but as a collaborative effort,” Dorn said.

While there clearly were benefits for Divisions II and III, Appleton and Dorn nonetheless lament the loss of what had been effective under the old structure. Dorn, for example, believes federation has led unintentionally to greater separation among divisions. “We are much more compartmentalized now,” she said. “The goals are trying to provide the best experience for the student-athlete, independent of what division you are, but the networking and the reliance upon others to share information from division to division is lacking.”

Appleton said the check-and-balance role Division III played in the old structure has changed, too. He said when the three divisions collaborated through the Presidents Commission, the “all-for-one” leadership model was more apparent.

“Before restructuring, there was some perhaps presumptuous notion on our part that we were influential in terms of the overall development of policy,” Appleton said. “We valued the opportunity in the old Presidents Commission to be able to speak up on Divisions I and II matters such as progress toward degree, financial aid and regulations that had to do with what at that time were the excesses.”

Appleton acknowledged, though, that Divisions I and II needed a different approach to further their agenda.

“We could speak philosophically and on great principle, but ultimately the presidents in the other divisions had to accept their own responsibility,” he said. “We would speak up about the need for reform in intercollegiate athletics, but did we have an influence? Perhaps in a philosophical sense, but in terms of actual change, it became pretty clear that Divisions I and II had to exercise their own responsibility to get it done.”

In addition to financial guarantees, though, Appleton said Division III wanted some reassurance that restructuring wouldn’t strip Division III of its Association-wide influence. He said what was approved at the 1996 Convention gained Division III’s blessing.

“From a Division III perspective, we needed to make sure that the NCAA was not moving in a direction in which policy would be dominated by larger institutions in Division I — that we could be assured that the principles and philosophy important to us could be sustained. I believe that in the years that followed, we have been making rules that are taking the entire organization in a direction that is healthy.”

— Gary T. Brown