According to an NCAA news summary, 25 Division III schools’ financial aid awards were found not acceptable and were forwarded to the NCAA’s enforcement staff. In these schools, the aid to student-athletes exceeded the aid awarded to the general student body by at least 4%, when comparing students with similar need.

The original list of schools out of the norm was 60, about 14% of Division III. Some details of the various levels of review were included in the NCAA’s piece.

That wasn’t the committee dealings the NCAA chose to emphasize, but it was what leaped off the page at me. The other big news is a proposal to put in year-round drug testing in Division III. One of the justifications was that a 2005 NCAA study put Division III drug usage at or above levels of usage in Division I. That may be true. It might also be the case that Division III student-athletes were simply more truthful in filling out the survey, since there are fewer consequences at the non-scholarship level. The testing proposal is for a two-year pilot program.

There was a list of things that the Management Council urged the Presidents Council and Executive Committee Working Group to consider:

·Further limitation on the provisional class size (one or two per year).
Not a problem. Division III is going to be too large to manage at some point.

·Tightening the standards applied to exploratory and provisional members to begin the process in lieu of the lottery system.
What a concept. Almost like I posted last August.

·Long-term divisional structure in the NCAA.
Does this sound like the late ’90s movement to subdivide Division III? Ugh.

·Optimal size of Division III based on resource allocation.
Optimal size of Division III is pretty darn close to where we are now.

·More aggressive screening of active members consistent with the Division III philosophy, membership and legislative requirements.
Sounds like more enforcement.

·Raising membership dues, if necessary, to address additional Division III resources, services and long-term membership options.
Seems reasonable.

·Changing demographics in the United States in relation to higher education.
Anyone working in higher education please chime in on this one.