NCAA Division III
Divisional Concerns in Restructuring
(Monday, June 6 --10:30-11:45 a.m.)
On behalf of the Division III members of the NACDA Executive Committee, I welcome you to the fIrst ofmany breakout special sessions specifically for our diverse membership, Division III. With our NCAA Director, Ced Dempsey, the recent memo dated May 18, 1994, which we all received, and the article in the Athletics Administration, April, 1994, concerning the NAIA restructuring most in mind, we have a great deal of ground to cover. Today, we have four people who will speak to you on different aspects of restructuring, but knowing that we are the largest division, the most important division, the NCAA Executive Director, Ced Dempsey, will begin with a few words.
My comments will be few since I've already addressed you this morning. This is where my roots began, in Division III. It's logical that I would start here this morning. First of all, I want to compliment those of you who have been involved in the pro-active planning that has already taken place on issues related to Division III. As we talked about earlier, I wish the other two divisions were as far along in their thinking as this division is. This spring, I had the opportunity to visit a Division III conference and talk to those people about what their concerns are, so hopefully, some of the issues 1'11 raise this morning are issues that you're thinking about. I know the panel today has spent a great deal of time in looking at the issues related to Division III.
As you look at all three divisions, everyone's talking about sub-dividing more. You wonder how many structures or federations we could have, but it's probably an indication of the eclectic personalities throughout the divisional structure of the association and something that I do think we ought to spend a lot of time on. I, truthfully, mean what I said this morning. The issues are as critical to the association as the other issues facing the other divisions. In many ways, because of the size of Division III and the complexity and the number of schools that have a variety of philosophies right now, it is a critical point for you as you look ahead in planning any form of restructuring.
The Restructuring Committee has not been formed at this stage. It will be named sometime in the later part of this month by the Joint Policy Board. I suspect they will have one meeting prior to the August 31 deadline on how they are going to approach dealing with the membership restructuring. In January, we will have some resolutions related to restructuring and there will, no doubt, be some forum breakouts related to restructuring. It would not be my expectation that we would see legislation toward restructuring until the 1996 convention, so it give us about a year and one-half to message ideas and to work with the membership on any appropriate changes. That's important for you to keep in mind. You're not on a serious time frame that you have to have something in by June 15th. That's not going to happen. At the same time, it does not mean that the association is not interested in forms of restructuring. It's going to take a period in order to try to look at what's best for each division and then, how do we put it altogether into an umbrella that will be acceptable to the membership.
I do think it is one of the real important challenges we have in front ofus. We've heard the threats over and over again about if we can't resolve this, whether the Division I-A schools would pullout, which would, obviously, create a totally different kind of environment for intercollegiate athletics. I don't think that's going to happen, but we do need to address what their concerns are as well as the Division III concerns.
Are there any questions or comments?
I'm John Schael, from Washington University. I had a chance to listen to your remarks this morning. It seems to me that an unfair burden has been placed on the Division I athletics program within the university setting. It seems a lot of these problems could be resolved if the university would look at athletics with a shared responsibility. It seem unfair in terms of the pressure they've put on you. If you took a school like a school of fine arts, they don't expect to be able to raise every penny to fund every aspect of that particular school. The universities have to declare what their responsibilities are.
I don't disagree with you there. As I mentioned, I really believe that the issues and challenges we have in Division I
were created when that shift began. I remember when I first got into Division I athletics, that shift was just beginning to take place. The problem today with the difficulties of funding of higher education, it is not a time for institutions to say we're going to place priorities and put athletics back into the mainstream of funding in the institution. That's just not feasible. The second problem is that many programs have indebtedness of facilities to deal with and institutions aren't going to accept that responsibility, so we're in a Catch 22. This is the problem, and we've heard from a lot of the presidents, about even looking
at a championship for football. That is contrary to the philosophy of intercollegiate athletics. It is not contrary to the mission of Division I. There's only a couple ofnew revenue streams that could be generated from the association's standpoint for the membership in order to continue to survive in its present form, unless we change the form. Because of the fmancial obligations, I don't see many Division I schools saying we're going to accept the responsibilities of the budget. I just don't think that's going to happen. There are too many liabilities tied into that. That's a dilemma that we face.
The Division III budgeting approach can resolve a lot of your issues because you are an integral part of the budget of the university or college in which you're associated. It's a lot easier having worked in both settings, there's a real dilemma in I-A and I think all of you can understand that if they feel like they're generating all of the dollars and they're suffering at their own institutions, they need to find a way to keep most of those dollars. At this time now, we all know that the Division I Basketball Tournament is providing, basically, 85 to 90 percent of the total budget of the association, plus the revenue distribution and the sponsorship of championships that we have through the grants to Divisions II and III. It's a major issue. Most of the issues we have in athletics are related back to the dollar in some form or other.
From the Floor:
Could you explain the role of the presidents?
The presidents will have an integral part on the Restructuring Committee. 'The Joint Policy Board will receive back the Restructuring Committee's Report which will then go from there to the Presidents' Commission, as well as to the council of the association. I would assume in both cases that they will take some position based upon what the Restructuring Committee comes out with as to what should be supported at the 1996 Convention. I think the presidents will be very closely involved in this whole process. It really gets at the core, again, of the whole issue. In working with the Presidents' Commission, in two relationships, secretary/treasurer and now as executive director, I see a change in interest. They want to stay involved, certainly, in the oversight of intercollegiate athletics. I think they would like to get out of the micro management, but you would say restructuring is part of that oversight. I would expect the presidents to be very involved in this whole process.
Mr. Demosev asked for auestions at this time and all were inaudible.
Personally, finances are one of the major driving reasons for restructuring. I also think there is power involvement here. I don't think it's just finances. I really think, there's no press in here, so I'll go ahead and say it. Part of it is a power struggle, at this point in time, as whether or not the association is the best avenue for Division I-A institutions. When we talked about the break there, it's been there for a long time. I still don't believe it's going to happen, but we do have to be responsive to that threat. There's always the eventuality that a number of schools would consider pulling away from the NCAA into their own organization. There's some members that would support that, but I don't think it's a predominate figure of the 106 schools that presently exist in I-A.
I appreciate your attention and comments. Dan keeps me informed on what's going on in Division III. Whatever we do in terms of the membership structure, we have to look at all divisions because, somehow, it has to ducktail together into some plan that makes sense. That's the one weakness that the members of the CCA and Division I came out with. They did not address the issues in the other divisions to say go ahead and do what you want to do and we'll give you a few dollars to operate on. I look forward to staying in touch with you. Thank you.
We too said, no. The NCAA is in good hands with you at the helm and we know we always have a friend at the office.
Now, with us today, are four people who wish to share their thoughts on restructuring and each has a different aspect to deliver. First, we have John Harvey, past vice president ofNCAA Division III and athletic director at Carnegie Mellon
University. We have Dave Johnsen, a member of the NACDA Executive Board and NAIA member and director of athletics at Iowa Wesleyan University; we have Dennis Collins, commissioner of the NCAC and a member of the NCAA Council and, last, but not least, Tim Gleason, a former member of the NACDA staff and now commissioner of the Ohio Athletic Conference. We also have Dan Dutcher, who is very interested in Division III, from the national office.
Thank you, Betty .I think we really had some pretty good comments already to encourage some ideas. I'm glad that it was decided, in the NACDA planning, to have a restructuring session in Division III in this schedule. It's important in the whole picture, as Ced pointed out today. Division III represents some certain important principles, as we all know. We talk about principles, we emphasize principles, and I think those need to be represented in the restructuring issue.
In this session today, we'll try to represent several different viewpoints to give some diversity to the scene. My job is to frame the whole thing and to introduce a couple of fairly specific proposals or reports that will be of interest to you.
I'd like to carry further on a few comments that Dick Schultz made this morning. He made some very good comments. Change is occurring, as we know. It's very obvious to some ofus that some of the changes have been occurring. I don't think the status quo is possible. That's not the natural way things are going. We've seen a major proposal from Division I-A to restructure with I-A conferences, approximately 70 institutions combined, to come up with a whole new setup that is a very drastic departure from what we have now. If any elements of that did come to be the case, there would be some substantial affect on Division II and III. If any of that changes, or other types of changes, even if they emanate from the Division I level go through, there are going to be some effects on us. I don't see any alternative to that.
The Division I institutions do want more control over their future, more financial control, primarily. Into this picture, we also throw the Division I-A playoff possibility, another change going on in the organization. You read that it is getting closer. There's delay on it now, but there's a good possibility that something wil~. come around in that area. That would generate $80 to $100 million annually for the NCAA. I say the NCAA in the broadest aspect because this is $80 to $100 million for which Division I is going to be the primary objective. That money would be added to the $143 million now generated by the Division I basketball playoffs, so there are some significant changes going on that could affect Divisions II and III. That's the reason for us to talk about, not only the restructuring, but a more broader aspect of what will transpire as any restructuring takes place. Ced referred to these economic factors. They do drive a great deal of what Division I does and will have an affect on us.
Ced did say that some of the changes that could take place would make things uncomfortable in some ways for Divisions II and III. He warned us of the possibility if any of these substantial changes takes place, we have to be prepared. It really isn't possible to stay just as we are. Socially and economically things don't stay just as they are. We've had a 20 percent increase in our membership over the last eight years. We're up over 350 institutions. We have NAIA institutions coming into our membership, as you've heard, perhaps with some different philosophy in their background. These are changes that we have to incorporate into our thinking.
I'd like to mention what I think are a couple of logical alternatives. If you look down through the possibilities in restructuring, one would be to simply stay as we are in our structure. But, through our federated legislative procedure, make the necessary changes as we go along. That possibility has increasing appeal for a lot of us as we look at the various criteria that could be used to divide Division III. We look at these criterion and fmd that none of them are perfect criteria. We talk about dividing by enrollment. When I look at some of the championships, some of the things that have gone on in Division 111, even this year, Lebanon Valley, with approximately l,OOO students, wins the basketball championships. A private school, Mount Union, wins the football championship. There are examples on both sides of the question when you talk about whether enrollment should be used, whether private versus public should be used as a criteria, whether financial commitment to the program should be used as a criteria to divide. If you look at any single criteria, you find that it is very difficult to prove or show a good structural change possibility .That would then get us back to the possibility of staying as we are, but simply, adjusting through our normal legislative procedures and making the changes that are necessary as we go along rather than instituting a basic structural change.
On the other hand, we could be so good and so intelligent at our consideration of all of these factors that we came up with a very refined way of dividing Division III into two, three or four parts that was based on a lot of intelligent facts, perhaps come up with a good division of Division III that makes each of the components more homogeneous. That's a possibility that we need to consider, as well.
There is one other and, perhaps, a little more innovative. Rather than try to refme our own division into several sub- divisions in an applicable and appropriate way, we think that the only basic philosophical difference among many institutions in Division III is whether you give athletic scholarships, or you don't. If you then broadened out one group into the non- scholarship people and left it at that, which would include then Division Ills, part of Division II and the Ivy's in Division I, you could have one gross separation. One division would be non-scholarship and leave it at that. That's broadening in the other direction and that is a concept that hasn't been brought out much, but it seems to me that it could be one of the logical alternatives. I only throw that out as the opposite side of the spectrum from a very refined division among Division III institutions based on enrollment or any other factor you'd like to put into it.
There are several different ways to go including the possibilities of staying as we are structurally, but simply adjusting as we go along legislatively by the good procedures we now have. Several points of view that we have today still would benefit from some understanding of what NAIA has been doing in the past and is currently doing. I believe this is why Dave was added to the panel this morning and it's a good background for us. Dave Johnson from Iowa Wesleyan has been going through some restructuring changes and we found there are some similarities that would give us some direction. I would like to introduce Dave Johnsen.
First off, I'd like to thank Betty for inviting me to be a part of this panel today. When she first asked me, I wondered what in the world I would talk about. Actually, I am honored and feel privileged to be with you. They are passing out a handout. The NAIA has gone through a restructuring process in the last few years. What they're handing out is, basically, what our old structure looked like and what our new structure looks like right now. In regards to what Cedric Dempsey said, I find that I might have to restructure what 1'11 be talking about. I guess it depends upon what your questions might be.
In the past few years, some of you have made the move from NAIA to Division III. The NAIA has gone through several changes in the structure of it's system of governance. I'd like to share some of those with you today, the history of some of those changes, what the structure looks like today and some of what, I believe, were some of the problems that we had in getting to the structure that we have. I am not advocating any part of the NAIA model for Division 111, although, I think there may be some parts of the structure of the NAIA which may fit very well within Division III.
I'm here to tell you a little of what we've gone through and what we've achieved when we did. First, let's look at some of the history which led up to the change in the NAJA. The NAJA began to change its structure back in 1986. From that point on, we began an evolution process of change. We're still going through that change today.
In 1986, the Council of Presidents took on a more active role in the leadership of the association. Prior to this time, the Council of Presidents had been an advisory position only. It was felt that as the restructuring process began, the Council of Presidents should maintain its position at the top of the structure. So, we began to look at the rest of the structure and the rest of the governance of the NAIA and began to change from that point.
In the old structure, the National Executive Committee responsibilities included full administrative authority for the NAIA. This committee was charged with selection of sports for national championships, supervision of championships, determination of the qualifying process for district area and national events, public relations and promotions, supervision of the selection of district chairs, rules of eligibility , the number and composition of districts, the apportionment of funds to teams and national events, supervision and control of all NAIA coaches associations, standing committees and general and special committees and the enforcement of institutional penalties and suspensions. What all this did, was provide the National Executive Committee with control of the association. It was generally felt that the National Executive Committee had too much power and too much control of the association. Some changes needed to be made in order for the membership to feel more comfortable with the governance of the NAIA. These changes started with the Council of Presidents and carried on with the Athletic Directors' Association, the faculty athletic representatives and most of our district chairs.
It was felt within the membership, a time for change had come. The National Executive Committee now no longer exists. Most of its authority has been divided among the Council of Presidents, the Council of Athletic Administrators, the Council of Faculty Athletic Representatives and the Council of District Chairs, which has been eliminated now through this evolutionary process, this last council, and changed to the Council of Affiliated Conferences and Independents. That was changed this past year. In addition, a special reviewing committee, the National Coordinating Committee, was set up to approve or refer operational policies developed by any of the three councils. This committee also serves as communication links between all of the councils.
If you want to take a look at the handouts that were given to you, you might be able to follow along with what I have next. The duties of each of the councils are as follows: the Council of Presidents is the NAIA governing body. They're the people at the top, basically. We have an organization that is one school, one vote, very similar to the NCAA. The Council of Presidents is the governing body. The Council of Presidents has full authority in all fiscal matters of the association; the employment of and supervision of the NAIA chief executive officer and the president and the personnel of the national
office. They submit, at the national convention, a detailed report on all receipts and disbursements during the preceding
fiscal year .That is an audited financial statement from outside the NAIA. Authorization of the administrative committee of the Council of Presidents to transact necessary business of the association in the interim between meetings of the Council of Presidents is also given to that council. The review and action of all recommendations submitted by appropriate committees or associations through the authorized councils, decisions on withdrawal or denial of specific sports sponsorships for member institutions are the duties of the Council of Presidents. The duties of the Council of Athletic Administrators includes initiating operational policies for national competition, providing administrative supervision of all NAIA Coaches Associations the Athletic Trainers Association's Conducts and Ethics Committee and those associations and committees that
are sub-committees of those different groups.
The Council of District Chairs, which is now the Council of Affiliated Conferences and Independents initiate operational policies according to affiliated conferences and their independent structures. They provide administrative supervision to those committees which are assigned to them and which deal with those areas. The Council of Faculty Athletic Representatives includes initiating operating policies for re-evaluation and implementation of association academic
standards. They also provide administrative supervision of the National Eligibility Committee, National Faculty Athletics Representatives Association, the National Registrars Association and any other committees or subcommittees that are underneath them.
The National Coordinating Committee reviews operational policies for approval or referral which were developed by any of the three councils under the Council of Presidents. They pass those on to the Council of Presidents or to the membership, if necessary. They act as a communications link between all three of the councils and they act on request for appeals that arise from decisions from the National Eligibility Committee and the National Conducts Committee and those decisions on those appeals are final. They also act upon request for reinstatement of amateur status in accordance with established association procedures.
I'm going through this very quickly and it's very simple. The Athletic Directors' Association felt that control needed to be spread around and handled by groups who were better equipped to deal with the different situations. The Council of Presidents agreed and, thus, began a series of proposals from the Council of Presidents, the Athletic Directors' Association, district chairs and, eventually, the faculty athletic representatives for changes within the governance structure of the NAIA. It was generally felt that the National Executive Committee was too far removed from the general membership to be effective as the leadership of the association. The Council of Presidents had its greatest support for change from the Athletic Directors' Association which was responsible, for the most part, in determining the duties of the new councils, with the exception of the Council of Presidents.
The first proposal came from the Council of Presidents and was not really acceptable with the membership and the Athletic Directors' Association then stepped in and began to refine and add to the Council of Presidents initial proposal. The Faculty Athletic Representatives then began to take a more serious look at what was happening. They had not really been involved with the governance of the NAJA. Our faculty athletic representatives then took a stronger viewpoint and began to look at where they fit in to the governance. They also took a major role in establishing what the final proposal would look like.
During this time, as these proposals and counter proposals were being worked out, the National Executive Committee tried to take a hard stand for no changes, but, then began to back off as they saw that the membership began to agree with the presidents and the Athletic Directors' Association in that change was necessary and inevitable. The National Executive Committee had several proposals of their own, but most of these were not changed or adopted radically through the whole process. The change was, obviously, hard for the National Executive Committee to accept, but eventually realized that the change was necessary. The conciliatory measure for the National Executive Committee was the formation of the National Coordinating Committee which, basically, serves as a liaison between the three Councils and the Council ofPresidents.
The whole process of change was not an overnight idea. As I said, it really began back in 1986. I'd like to think of it as an evolutionary change. It's taken time to get to where we are now and the change has not always been an easy one, as some
of you well know. Division III has had an influx ofNAIA schools, Division II has, as well. The NAIA is concerned about this as, I'm sure you are and Division II is, as well. But this evolutionary process, this change, is necessary and our membership agreed that it was necessary and began to look at what needed to be done. The athletic directors took a very vital role in the whole change process. We're still changing. The process is not done and that may be the key to the whole thing, to the whole restructuring process. It may be that it's not an overnight thing, but it takes a period of time. It's an evolutionary period that you have to go through. The change is inevitable. That's obvious. It's going to happen.
You, as Division III athletic directors and conference commissioners, have the ability, the obligation, to make the changes that you feel are necessary within your own organization. NCAA Division III is the single largest four-year college sports organization in the country. Looking at that, I have two questions from the aspect of the NAIA. Number one, if necessary, are you prepared to become larger? Number two, what will your role be in the whole NCAA, not just within Division III, but the entire organization? You're a very large organization. What is your role going to be? What will happen if the NAIA is assimilated into the NCAA? As far as I know, there are no plans for that. But, yet, the leadership of the NAIA and the leadership of the NCAA are both talking about it. In my mind, that says, if they're talking about it, there must be some plans somewhere. Whether it's within the NCAA, whether it's within the NAIA, I don't know, but there must be some plans for it somewhere. Are you prepared to bring in a bigger influx ofNAIA schools? What are the changes that are going to have to occur within Division III if that happens? There are differences in philosophies. There are differences in
the way we think. Some of them are similar. Some of them are very different. What are you going to do if that happens? If the NAIA disappears, we have to have someplace to go. There are over 300 schools in the NAIA now. Some of them will
go to Division II, some to Division III. Are you prepared for that influx? This definitely will be one issue that you're going to need to look at in regards to your restructuring. Hopefully, this mass of influx ofNAIA schools into the NCAA has stabilized. But, if it hasn't and the increase continues, what plans does the NCAA have in regards to this increase of some 300 schools?
Again, thank you for letting me speak to you today. I hope that at least some of what I've given you will be useful to you. Please feel free to ask me any questions concerning the NAIA or the restructuring process. I'll be more than happy to answer any of your questions. Our next speaker is Dennis Collins, commissioner of the NCAC.
Goodjob, David. Thank you for that interesting report from that perspective. We've all learned something there. I also have the privilege for the next two years of serving as the president of the Division III Commissioners Association. In our January meeting, during the NCAA Convention, we had a number of round table discussions. One was presented on restructuring with some of the basic thoughts. The commissioners wanted to learn some more about it, so we scheduled a special meeting in March. We had a very nice turnout. We had 19 conferences represented at that meeting. The fact is that they wanted to learn more about the issue in preparation for their spring conference meetings that have or will be taking place very soon.
We felt that we needed to feel how the institutions felt about restructuring, not how the commissioners felt necessarily. With that intent, we had all of the commissioners survey their members to get a real handle on what they felt the issues were, first of all. After, we tried to identify what these issues were and how we felt about the restructuring to deal with those issues. I would like to now give you the highlights of that meeting and the survey results. I thought it might be helpful to throw out a few of the demographic figures on Division III. We have about 351 members, but we also have 29 conferences. At our meeting, we had 19 of those conferences represented. We also discovered that we have a fair amount of independent schools in Division III. There's about90 of them. They are also important in our scheme of things and they weren't represented in our survey. We had 19 conferences represented. They represented 184 Division III members which is, basically, 52 percent of Division III.
We tried to identify through the survey results and the discussion, what are the basic issues. We came back with four things and they all had to do with national championships. The fIrst one that seemed to be top on the list was a concern about the wide diversity of institutions that meet in the NCAA postseason competition. The disparity of enrollment in that regard was the number one issue on this concern, followed by sports sponsorship. In some cases, the low sports sponsorship requirement and the great diversity with some schools having high sports sponsorships and some having low sports sponsorships was a great concern. State versus private schools was an issue. Those seemed to surface as the issues.
Another big issue was the migration ofNAIA schools applying for membership in Division II and in Division III. That's an important concern. This was mentioned as a concern, not so much as the schools having the same philosophies. In a lot
of respects, the survey results came back that just the size of the divisions is a concern. What are your percentages of ever getting to a national championship with 350-400 members? This is an issue that surfaced from the institutions and the conference commissioners.
The third concern was a lack of access into NCAA championship fields. That's been mitigated by the expansion of the championship fields, but not completely. There's a lot of newer conferences and smaller conferences that have come in and want to feel a part of it. If you're part of an association like this and you pay your dues and you're doing everything right, you should have a reasonable expectation ofhaving, some time, access into a national championship in a sport. The commissioners voted unanimously to support and let the Championships Committee know that we felt that, if at all possible, all conferences would have automatic qualification into the national championship fields in all sports. That may not be possible, but that was the feeling of all of the conferences.
The final concern was losing two valuable items of membership. Number one, was the paid catastrophic insurance that we get; the second one was the increase and the very nice paid travel to our national championships and the expansion of those fields. As Division III members, we value these issues very much. We noticed in the survey that people were almost afraid to suggest any change for fear that they might rock the boat and it may be taken away. This was an issue with all ofus and, certainly, it means a lot of money to us. Dick Schultz mentioned some years ago that the average NCAA membership is worth about $10,000 and I think it's worth that alone just in the catastrophic insurance for all of us. If you go to championships, it's a bonus. That's a conservative figure. We pay a nominal fee for membership, but we certainly get a lot back. If there would be any massive restructuring, we might lose that. On the other hand, we've heard that there is a commitment to continue to fund Division II and Division III championships.
We took these issues and tried to determine some alternatives for the restructuring process. As John mentioned, don't do anything. Retain the current structure. We could certainly do that. Increase access to the championships through some expansion of the field size with automatic bids given to all eligible conferences. There was also a concern with the commissioners that we need to systematically rotate representation on selection committees and demand greater accountability, especially in the area of requiring teams to do x and y. One particular thing was to travel out of region to play more competitive teams. That could help to alleviate some of the problems. A third option was to create a two-tiered championship structure including national championships at our current level or a reduced level with an addition of regional championships for those not selected to the national championship. That happens to the schools in the ECAC who do have an opportunity after their conference championship for a regional postseason play. That helps a lot of the schools out there, but the rest of the schools in Division III do not have that opportunity .There's is an interest in national championship, which we've established, so that might be a mitigating factor for some of our members in the east. Those ofus in the Midwest, south and west do not have anything beyond our conference championship.
Another option was to create completely separate tiers of national or regional competition with institutions self-selecting as to where they would want to go in any given year. A fourth option was to sub-divide the division for purposes of conducting two sets of national championships. In other words, take Division III and divide it in half and divide the current births in half. Such an effort should focus on splitting the division rather than having the affect of disenfranchising a portion of the membership. That should also go along with some self-selection where you choose where you go. There is already some of that in the NAIA.
Finally, the fifth option was to create a new separate division with additional requirements and a proportional field of national championships slots which, at this point, would be a smaller set of national championships. It could be pro-rated out of the current Division III funding. So, those are some of the options that you, as conference members, told your conference commissioners and brought to our survey. Out of the 19 conferences, 10 favored restructuring, two were undecided and seven were satisfied with the status quo. You had a slight majority of approximately 59 percent of the conferences surveyed favored restructuring. It's important to know that the 10 who favored restructuring were all private school conferences. The two undecided were both private school conferences and of the seven satisfied with the status quo, three were state conferences and four were private conferences. It was a good mix.
Basically, those are the results of the survey and the commissioners meeting held in March. Thank you.
(At this point, the Division III season was moved to a different room and was not taped, so there is no transcript for that portion. )