The NCAA recently sent out a survey to the Division III membership looking for feedback on the growth of the division. There has been a great deal of rhetoric about whether Division III should subdivide into two groups and there’s been a lot of discussion about it on our message board.

“The membership received a lot of important information and engaged in some very good discussions at the NCAA Convention in January about the future of Division III and the association as a whole. With this survey, we are looking to build on those discussions and continue to ask Division III members what they think is the best direction to move toward,” said Dan Dutcher, NCAA vice president for Division III.

The Capital Athletic Conference issued a statement today regarding the movement and the debate. We offer it up for discussion below:

To: Members of NCAA Division III
From: Board of Directors, Capital Athletic Conference
Re: Membership Restructuring
Date: February 21, 2008

With the NCAA Division III Membership Survey currently being considered on each of our campuses, the future of our division is very much at the forefront of everyone’s mind. While the NCAA Working Group on Membership Issues has worked diligently to research what structural concerns may be developing within our landscape, much of the reaction from Nashville involved membership frustration over how this process has been approached. The Working Group’s efforts at educating the membership as to what they perceive as fundamental differences within our ranks has taken on the appearance of top-down management. These apparent differences have had no Division III membership “face” or “voice” thus far.

The Capital Athletic Conference, a widely diverse grouping of nine public and private institutions throughout the Middle Atlantic region, strongly believes that this top-down approach must change. As we craft our survey responses, the time has come for those institutions and conferences which desire change to come forward and clearly articulate their vision of the future. Publicly, we have heard a number of reasons why breaking up Division III would be a poor idea. Conversely, we have heard few reasons why reorganization would be a good idea…and more importantly, exactly what a new division would look like. We believe that a new division or structure would only be warranted if this new destination was formed with philosophies and regulations significantly different from what we currently utilize. For if this vision is not clearly different from the current model, then those desiring change would simply be advocating change for the sake of change.

From our perspective, there have been two public positions articulated as to why our division needs restructuring: potential membership growth and apparent philosophical differences based on legislative voting patterns. Membership growth is being called problematic. However, we believe growth could be one of the division’s strengths. Athletics is based on the concept of competition – one squaring off against another. However, by dividing the membership, we are actually diluting the level of competition we face. Limiting the level of competition in Division III could have a negative impact on all programs.

A recent letter to the membership from John Fry highlighted how the January 2008 voting results of proposals #5, #7 and #8 continue to outline “the existence of fundamentally different perspectives in our division”. Since none of those who desire change voiced specific reasons as to why a difference in perspective is alarming, this concern of the Working Group appears to be based upon simple legislative changes. Changes such as shifting the contest start date in basketball by a handful of days. The letter characterized the passing of this legislation as, “eroding the playing reforms adopted in 2004”. This overzealous interpretation of legislation, adopted to simplify calendar dates, is typical of the questionable examples offered by the Working Group that, in its terms, “demonstrate significant philosophical differences.” Does a disagreement of this limited degree warrant upsetting the traditionally successful and highly attractive environment we enjoy in today’s Division III? The CAC does not believe so.

Without a clearly defined and publicly stated future structure, two things occur: the motivation for change is questioned … and the effectiveness of issue-based education is limited. Based upon numerous conversations in Nashville, three possible common areas emerged as to why some believe change in necessary. They are: 1) the interests of “like-minded” institutions; 2) NCAA Championship success; and 3) more restrictive regulations. If there are a number of schools dissatisfied with the diversity amongst the membership and wish only to compete against schools similar to their own make up, this needs to be addressed publicly. Are the real issues possibly academic reputation, institutional endowment, cost and/or enrollment? If these represent the true issues, the self-selection opportunity for the dissatisfied members may very well negate the need for wholesale change in divisional make-up. If these aren’t the issues, then why is change necessary?

If having the ability to compete for a national championship is at the center of the change argument, then the CAC encourages the membership to review success patterns of various NCAA Division III tournaments (not just who becomes national champion, but who enjoys a longer stay in these tournaments). We believe you will find that success in virtually every sport’s national tournament has been achieved by schools large and small, more expensive and less expensive, public and private, and highly selective and less selective in the admissions process. If developing a smoother avenue to championship success is not one of the major reasons why those wanting a new division desire change, then we ask the change leaders to propose a more radical approach – perhaps one without national championships.

Lastly, if those who desire change are interested in a division governed by a more restrictive rule set, what would those new regulations encompass? No national championships? No non-traditional season? No off-campus recruiting? A large reduction in the playing and practice seasons? The elimination of freshman eligibility? As previously written, a new divisional structure should only be considered if the desire for change involves significant alterations to how we currently operate. If these areas of significant change are not incorporated into the new division’s format, then the reasons for change have not been articulated in a transparent and honest fashion.

There are many unanswered questions. With less than one year to formulate our thoughts on how we will define not only our institutional future but the future of our entire organization, more specific information is needed, particularly from dissatisfied members. This information must include clear definitions of the philosophical and operational differences necessary to easily separate ourselves from our divisional colleagues. The Capital Athletic Conference asks that those who desire change come forward and help us understand your vision. Provide the membership an opportunity to decide its future from a position of intellectual strength rather than from assumptions and possible miscommunication. The landscape we develop for our future student-athletes deserves much thoughtful and honest consideration of the facts and issues.