NCAA Division III Breakout
Options and Issues in Restructuring
(Tuesday, June 11, 9:30 - 11:45 a.m.)
Good morning. I'm Louise O'Neal and a member of the NACDA Executive Committee and the Division III Planning Committee for this year's Convention. We want to welcome you to the Division III Breakout Session on "Options and Issues in Restructuring in Division III." I'm going to give you a brief overview of the session because it will be a long one, but we will provide for a brief stretch and break in the middle. We'll go to 11:45, longer if the question and answer period continues.
This session is going to consist of presentations by members of the Division III Task Force on Restructuring and will provide you with opportunities to ask questions and answers. Our first part will consist of presentations by John Harvey on governance issues and followed by Dick Rasmussen on membership issues. John and Dick will introduce members of their respective subcommittees at the table at the beginning of their presentations. Our last session will be on championship issues.
On behalf of the Division III members, I want to thank the Division III Task Force on restructuring for their work. I also thank them for their willingness to come here in the summer and give us an opportunity and an update to, not only gain more information, but to also give them some input on their work in progress. I believe we're now ready for John Harvey.
Thank you Louise. I'd like to thank NACDA for the opportunity for our Task Force to present some ideas to you, our proposals for change in the whole structure of the NCAA and our part in it. We've needed the opportunity to express some of the principles and ideas and plans that we've had before us and that we've developed in the last six months. My part will be on governance, as Louise said, and I am going to ask Judy Sweet and John Biddiscombe to share the load with me here today. There are quite a few items under the governance portion that should be pointed out to you. You have sheets that were passed out to you, and so much of the material is in there. Our object would be to highlight some of the key points, some of the major things and not to go down every detail which you can read for yourselves.
I do want to stress the word, forum, that we've mentioned. Besides our presentations, I hope you'll take the opportunity to think of questions you have regarding either governance, championships or memberships, the three portions of our presentation, because that interaction is something that will be of value to us on the Task Force as we go ahead with further meetings.
We have divided ourselves into three subcommittees. I have had the engaging task of working with several other people on the governance portion of the Task Force's work. We've gotten into the ideas of revamping a great deal of the governance system we have had in the past for the future use, should this whole restructuring proposal be accepted. It's been exciting. In some respects, we wanted to select the variety of governance we felt were good and retain those. Perhaps, emphasize the strengths of the governance system that we've had in the past, but also, we found that there are many areas in which we felt improvements could be made. Part of our task then, was to very critically look at our governance system of the NCAA in the past as
regards to Division III and change those aspects we felt should be changed and improved.
I've had the privilege of working with several other people. John Biddiscombe, the athletic director of Wesleyan University; and Judy Sweet has been on our Governance Committee. Not with us today is Jen Shillingford, the athletic director at Bryn Mawr College; and Stan Caine, the president of Adrian College in Michigan. It's been a privilege to work with these people because it's a very experienced group. We all had a lot of years experience and we felt that the benefits of that experience.
Since January, our Governance Committee has met three times face-to-face with the full Task Force and talked about a lot of things. We've also had a couple of extended conference calls. We worked out the details you find presented to you in the material you have.
The objective has been to set up legislation for this coming January that will be necessary to begin this whole new governance systems as of August 1997. In the six months since the convention, we've done some work and we're going to continue on with that work toward the convention in January when all items will be set before you. The Presidents Commission meets in another couple of weeks and all of this will be proposed and submitted to the Presidents Commission for, we hope, their support as we go forward.
First, the Administrative Committee's function has been, in the past, to handle issues of management and governance in the interims between the Presidents Council's meetings and the Management Council's meetings. That function and that purpose will continue with this new system. There are going to be five members on that Administrative Committee. The key point here to remember on the Administrative Committee is that three of those people will be chief executive officers to carry through with this purpose that Cedric Dempsey mentioned this morning, of building more control by the CEOs into this new governance structure. Three of the five members of this new committee set up will be chief executive officers.
Moving to the Management Council, the Task Force's recommendation here recently has been to increase the membership from the earlier number of 16 on this council, to 19 members. The increases have come in a couple of suggestions that we'll get to more specifically later. One was the request from the faculty athletic representatives to have an additional member on that Management Council. We felt that was the way to go, so there will be one further faculty athletic rep on that Council. We decided, as you heard Cedric mention this morning, we would recommend that we add two student representatives to voting positions on the Management Council. That will be a fairly widely discussed move. It puts pressure, I would say, on Divisions I and II to follow, in some respects. I'll let Judy discuss that further. Nevertheless, the increase from 16 to 19 is comprised of two new student-athlete representatives and one further faculty representative. I'd also note that on that Management Council, we have prescribed a gender balance of a minimum of nine women and nine men of the 19. That also is a very aggressive approach and that was well discussed in our meetings of the Task Force. Our recommendation will be a minimum of nine men and a minimum of nine women with the Management Council.
Let me move onto the nomination process for these various committees, including the Management Council. The nomination process is going to be carried out by our recommendation through a nominating committee. They would handle nominations, not only for the Management Council, but also for all standing committees that report to the Management Council. This is an expanded role for the Nominating Committee. To handle that expanded role, we've also prescribed more members on the Nominating Committee. There would be eight members on that Nominating Committee, four of whom would be former NCAA officers and council members. The intent here, obviously, has been to build experience into this critical job, but also leaving room for new blood each time the terms are turned over. The terms of those Nominating Committee members will be two years.
We think the nominating process to the Management Council and to all standing committees is going to be an expanded and increasingly critical role in improving past systems. The presidents will also pick up on this as we hope to gain their support, as well. Those are some of the changes, in certain respects. I will now turn it over to John Biddiscombe to talk about further committee appointments and systems. Again, I want to emphasize that we're talking here today mostly about the changes and the improvements that have been made. There are a lot of other continuations of previous processes you'll see in your material and we'd be glad to answer any questions about those processes, etc. But, we want to highlight the changes and improvements we're offering to the presidents and eventually to the NCAA meeting next January.
Thanks John. The deliberations the Task Force had regarding the creation of two other committees that being the Standing Budget Committee and the Championships Committee, were based upon three important principles and that was to provide more input from the membership, particularly, from all geographical regions. Secondly, to provide for effective decision making. Thirdly, to streamline the organizational structure as much as possible.
The creation of a Standing Budget Committee was one committee the Task Force felt was very important. That committee would have members of the Presidents Council, as well as members from the Management Council and the Championships Committee. They would all have representation into this Standing Budget Committee. As it's outlined in the information sheets you've been provided, there have been some thought and discussion about changing the budgetary time line or the process for creating the Division III budget from a year-to-year basis.
Currently, the budget process for input into the overall NCAA budget has begun in March and ran through the end of August, given that the NCAA runs onto a September 1 - September 1 budget schedule. It was a feeling of the Task Force and discussions particularly through strong representation from staff, that the budget process begins early, particularly right after the convention since we will continue to have a convention each year. Any legislation brought forward there that would have budget implications, committees would begin to review the implications of those decisions and begin the meeting schedule to talk about a budgetary process that would fund the proposed legislation. That way, committees could meet more often and organize themselves around this issue and make recommendations to the Budget Committee and, finally, to be approved through the Management Council to the Presidents Council in a timely way over the course of the spring and into the summer.
In the past, some of you might have observed that often when recommendations were put forward, they got referred back to a subcommittee. Then, the Presidents Commission might have felt that there wasn't enough information to make a decision, and therefore, that decision got delayed until a further budgetary year. Hopefully, this new organizational timetable would alleviate that.
The Championships Committee, obviously, is one that is an important committee and is one in the past that has gotten a lot of visibility. The Task Force thought we would redesign or reorganize this committee and that was, first of all, to increase membership up to nine members. Five of those members, four plus the chair, of the Management Council would serve on this as well as four additional members representing regions in the country. We're looking for representation from all eight districts throughout the country. Some of those representatives would come from the Management Council, existing people seated at that time, as well as others who would be nominated and appointed through the nominating process.
Those members who would serve from the Management Council would serve during the course of time they're serving on the Management Council with no one being able to serve more than two consecutive terms, or a total of four years. They would have input into the championship structure. It's important to note that the Championship Committee on budgetary matters or matters that deal with championships that would have budget implications would report through the Budget Committee onto the Management Council and up to the Presidents Council. On issues that were not necessarily budget related for example, let's say about minimum qualification standards for NCAA championships, they could bypass the Budget Committee and go directly to the Management Council first before they would go on to the Presidents Council.
That summarizes my part and I will now turn this over to Judy.
Good morning. I would like to underscore a couple of the points John and John made in regards to how the Task Force, particularly, the Governance Subcommittee approached its assignment. There are a couple of things that were very important to us. Recognizing the changes that were about to take place weren't changes we necessarily felt should take place within the association, but were decisions that were made outside of Division III, that obviously, were going to impact Division III. With that in mind, we felt that it was very important to get input from the Division III membership, to be as inclusive as possible, to try to identify new opportunities for the Division III membership, to be as efficient as possible, with the bottom line if we are going to make changes, let's make things better than they were before.
In building on the comments in regards to the committee structure, there are a couple of specific things I would like to point out. First of all, in regards to the sports committees, a couple of recommendations have been made. One is to require in both individual sports and team sports, that the composition of the committee consists of at least 50 percent administrators. Further, to require the administrative representation be pure administrators. In other words, if a coach is also an administrator and the sport committee pertains to the sport that individual coaches, that coach would not be eligible to fulfill the administrative slot. The coach could still serve on the committee in one of the coach's slots, but the administrative positions would be reserved for administrators who are not coaching in that particular sport.
Another recommendation that was made just three days ago at the Task Force meeting and it's consistent with the recommendation from the previous reference to the Nominating Committee, is if a conference or institution has had a representative on that particular committee, when they complete their term, or they're no longer serving on that committee, that slot could not be filled by another conference or institution representative from the same university or college. That is to try to provide an opportunity for more institutions and more conferences to be involved in the committee process.
The next item I'd like to bring to your attention is on page four of the document in regards to other committees. As most of you are probably aware, under the current structure, there are a number of association-wide committees that involve representatives from all three divisions. Depending upon the nature of that assignment, the representation may be weighted more heavily toward Division I. As you heard in this morning's session, Division I is looking at a completely new committee structure, what they are now calling cabinets. Originally, I believe their intent was to reduce the number of committees. As you also heard this morning, that may not happen, and in fact, they may have now just added a new layer. In addition to having committees, they now have cabinets that the committees will be reporting to before recommendations go to the Management Council.
As a result of the direction Division I is going, both Division II and Division III will need to take a careful look at what committees are important to their respective divisions. Which committees should we continue to maintain for Division III? Are there any new committees we should consider because it would be to the benefit of Division III? With the new structure, there are several committees that have been recommended to remain association-wide. I'll briefly reference those so you get a sense of where there is some support for recognizing that the committee responsibilities will directly apply to all divisions. Then, the remaining committees will be up to the divisions to determine how, or if, they will exist.
The association-wide committees being recommended at this time include Competitive Safeguards, Basketball Officiating, the Honors Committee, Minority Opportunities and Interests, National Youth Sport Program, Postgraduate Scholarships, Research Committee, Walter Byers Scholarship and Women's Athletics. One committee that has been recommended first, by the Review and Planning Committee, as a new association-wide committee is Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct. At this point, there has been no action taken. It was supported by the Division III Task Force.
The last item I would like to discuss with you has been referenced twice already this morning, so I won't take a lot of time with it, that is, the involvement of student-athletes. I have had the pleasure of working with the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and I cannot tell you how impressed I am with their wisdom and their perception and how quickly they grasp the issues and how wise they are in recommending solutions. We feel it's very important to continue to involve student-athletes in a meaningful way. Under the former structure, or our current structure, there was one student-athlete advisory committee with 28 representatives, with a two to one ratio in Division I representation. Division II representation was half of that and Division III was half of the Division I representation, as well.
Division I and II, apparently, are recommending there be separate divisional student-athlete advisory committees. This is contrary to the recommendation from the existing Student-Athlete Advisory Committee who felt their common thread was that they are all student-athletes. Even though there may be some different circumstances and different pressures that exist for Division I athletes than Division III athletes, they still felt very strongly that they should remain as a unified body. The Oversight Committee is not supporting that recommendation. That doesn't necessarily mean the three separate Student-Athlete Advisory Committees couldn't meet jointly, although based on numbers I'm hearing right now, I'm not sure that would be workable.
But, the challenge for Division III is to identify a way to involve the student-athletes in a meaningful way. One of the recommendations is to seat two representatives from the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee on the Management Council. To insure these student-athletes have the proper background, the recommendation is that they have served for at least one year on the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, which will have given them an opportunity to attend at least one annual convention and have a better sense how business is conducted. Secondly, they would serve no more than two years. The theory in that recommendation is to not take too much of their time and try to provide opportunities for as many student-athletes as possible to gain from the experience of serving on the committee.
That concludes my comments at this time. Hopefully, there will be an opportunity for you to give us some feedback or ask questions at the end of our presentations. Thank you.
The Membership Subcommittee met a number of times. We met, primarily, by conference calls. The number of members who have been extremely helpful in dealing with a number of issues and distilling a large number of issues down to several key issues include Mike Walsh from Washington & Lee, Kitty Barrett from Center College and Walter Johnson from North Central College and several other members who were not able to be with us this morning.
The Membership Subcommittee was responding to and dealing with a number of issues raised at the conventions the last two years. We also made use of feedback that we received at the convention this year with regard to issues affecting our membership size and makeup, both for new members and for continuing members. We tried to develop some principles to work from that would guide us in our deliberations so we just weren't going off and dealing with issues in a matter that wasn't tied to some specific goals.
The principles we came up with were to the effect that we were trying to insure the membership of Division III that either new members or continuing members would enhance and have a commitment to the principles of the division as they're addressed in the Philosophy Statement and Rules and Regulations that govern our division in that they have a commitment to broad based athletic programs. Part of the problem is that we don't have a definition of broad based athletic programs. We went back and looked through the Philosophy Statement and the Manual and other things and we have never been able to define that. One of the things we tried to do initially was to develop something of a definition of what this concept of broad-based athletics program is about in terms that were general enough that it would not put undue hardship on individual institutions. We recognize there are aspects of that definition that are germane for the province of a particular institution, but also reasonably specific so that we would have something to guide us. There is an attachment to the materials that were circulated about these issues.
We felt that broad-based athletics programs should provide student-athletes with multiple opportunities for competition at the intercollegiate level. The opportunities should span multiple seasons of the year. They should serve a variety of student-athletes instead of serving the same students from one season to the next. Each sport should be supported and promoted on its own merits rather than serving as a training center for another sport. Sponsorship for team sports should be encouraged. That's based on the assumption that team sports tend to provide more opportunities for more participants, but that the number, the scope, the choice of sports sponsored by an institution should remain the prerogative of the individual institution and should be consistent with the mission of that institution, the financial resources and the size of the composition of its student bodies.
So, based on those principles, we went forward. Our work was divided into two areas. The first area had to do with new membership issues. The first proposal we brought forward in that area was to increase the provisional membership period from three to four years, and to provide a means of reviewing the progress of new members into coming into compliance with our rules and regulations. The increased length of the provisional membership period will accomplish a couple of things. We hope it will provide new members with a period in which we can insure they have a clear understanding of the expectations of the Division III membership that they are familiar with our rules and our policies, that they have time to bring their programs into full compliance before they begin their full membership in that division, and that there is an opportunity for them to demonstrate their level of compliance and a period of time in which an appropriate level of oversight or external review can be exercised by the membership before the new members become full members of the association.
Toward that end, we are suggesting that a review process take place. In looking at a possible review process, we talked about campus visits, etc. As we discussed that among our subcommittee with the Presidents Commission and with the full Task Force, we backed off of that somewhat. At one point, I think we were headed in a direction that was a little too close to a full compliance review. That's not what we really want to accomplish. So, we will be asking the new provisional members to provide the Management Council or some sub group of the Management Council or perhaps another committee with which the Governance Committee will be looking at in the next few months, with information about their institution and about their program in order that an assessment can be made as to areas where they might need to do other things to come into compliance with our rules.
We are asking them to, one, complete an institutional self-study during the second year of their provisional membership. We want them to forward to the Management Council, or its appropriate subgroup, information about that process. We're asking them for a copy of the report which is generated by the request of the Institutional Self-Study. The Institutional Self-Study also assumes there are certain documents in place on campus, for instance, how admission decisions are made and if there are policies pertaining to that. We would ask them for the information that's required to be reported as part of the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act since a lot of the information that will come out of that document reflects information about the breadth and scope of the athletic program. We ask them for copies of schedules and scheduling history, etc. We're trying to build a picture of what that institution's athletic programs look like, how they're organized, how they're run and to see if there are any areas that might be of concern to the Management Council before a provisional member is admitted into new full membership status.
It's our belief that what we are asking for should not put an undue burden on the prospective member. We're asking for information that is either required by federal law, that every institution has to provide, or it's information that comes directly out of the Institutional Self-Study Guide, which is a requirement new members go through.
The process that would take place is, they would complete that study. The information would be forwarded to the Management Council. The Management Council would review it and if there were concerns, there may be a communication that goes back from the Management Council to the prospective member. They may request an in-person visit where representatives from the institution would meet with the Management Council or its designate. That institution would have another two years to implement any suggestions that might be made.
We also considered the possibility of requiring that new members be sponsored by current members, perhaps, one or two current members would have to serve as a sponsor or mentoring institutions for new institutions. We saw some value in that. We also saw some drawbacks, so we chose to stay away from it. Even in terms of the mentoring relationship, we felt it would be best, particularly given the new staffing arrangements and commitment to staffing of Division III directly, that provisional members would be best served and the membership would be best served if they deal directly with the NCAA office.
In the area of continuing membership issues, we have two proposals to bring forward. First of those, is a proposal for an increase of sports sponsorship level. That would be to increase our requirement for sports sponsorships from four men's and four women's sports to five men's and five women's sports. Based on comments and feedback from the convention, there was very strong support for this. We do realize it does affect some current members and some current provisional members. We do plan to build an effective date into the legislation to require this by August 1, 2001. Institutions would have a four-year period from the time the moratorium ends until the time this goes into effect. There was discussion about the effects of this on some small institutions. Tape Ends Here . . .
Those waivers would likely be based on things like Title IX implications. An institution was sponsoring a number of women's sports beyond the required level, but not at the required level at the men's side and an increase in the men's sports sponsorship would put them in a difficult situation, or take them out of compliance with Title IX. They might very well be eligible for a waiver. The demographics of an institution, competition in various sports, make up of the student body, with only 15 or 20 percent women might be granted a waiver; the women's sports requirements for reasons of their student enrollment demographics; the waiver process would be out there. It's our recommendation all waiver requests be treated on a case-by-case basis. As each case comes forward, the Management Council would review the case and grant additional time for an institution to come into compliance, or grant a waiver and set a period after which that waiver would be reviewed again. It's not likely that an institution would be granted a waiver forever. Things do change. Single sex institutions do become co-ed institutions. Things do happen.
Another item I want to discuss is one that falls in with the concept of trying to insure that new members and continuing members do operate the programs in a manner that's consistent with our philosophy. We are recommending we establish educational seminars as part of the convention each year which would deal directly with issues related to our rules, regulations and policies, programs such as how to complete an institutional self-study. What are the expectations there? There might be seminars on financial aid policies, playing and practice season regulations, etc. There would be an ongoing program from year-to-year at each Convention which is the time that we are most likely to get our membership to attend. Hopefully, that participation in those programs over a period of time by enough member institutions would have the effect of insuring that more and more of our institutions are operating their programs in a manner that's increasingly consistent with our philosophy.
The last item we considered, but chose not to bring forward as a recommendation was a change in our dues' structure. We were looking at a number of different issues and one of the members of our subcommittee noticed our dues had not been changed since 1985. Our dues were lower than other divisions. We've raised the issue of whether or not there would be any benefit in changing the dues structure. There were some advantages. We felt there were more disadvantages at this time in doing that. It wasn't necessary nor advisable to move that proposal forward.
Those are the issues that we dealt with -- continuing membership, new membership and we would like to invite your comments or questions.
Most Questions from the Floor were Inaudible
The question was about why the increase in length, and more information on the justification for that. One of the things we were trying to get at in increasing the length of the provisional period was to be able to work with the prospective institutions and provide greater insurance that they really do understand what the expectations of Division III membership are about and to provide time for some sort of appropriate assessment to take place. We felt the three-year period right now would make that somewhat difficult. By adding a fourth year, which actually is the second year and takes place in the middle, is an additional educational year. The first year the provisional members are finding out what the requirements and expectations are and during the second year, the institution would be carrying out a comprehensive self-assessment. We felt the third year was important because at that time, the Management Council can review the results of that assessment along with the institution. The institution has a reasonable length of time after that if there is additional work to be done to come into compliance. This will also insure the membership that when new members do come in, they are in full compliance. We felt it was useful to expand that period to insure that happens.
The institution will not have to be burdened with changing overnight. Some things do take time to implement.
Louise, I know we're getting close to time that we need to end. I just want to emphasize how much we appreciate the comments you've made and the input you've given us this morning and how important it is for you to continue to provide input to the Task Force. Many of the items we're discussing this morning will turn into legislative proposals. They will be back before you next January. In order for us to go forward with the best possible legislation, it would be helpful if you see some flaws in areas that we're recommending, or if you have some concerns, or if we have overlooked something, please let us know.
The work of the Task Force is not nearly complete. There is an opportunity to add things. There is an opportunity to change things, but as we get closer to the convention, that opportunity will diminish, at least for 1997, and consequently, will push things off to 1998. This process will be evolving. Not everything will be complete in 1997, so I don't mean to imply that if we don't get it done in 1997, there won't be another opportunity. I believe the Task Force is very interested in hearing from you if there are things you feel have been omitted, or things that could be improved upon, please let us know that.
A five-minute break was held at this time.
Before we begin, I would like to introduce myself. I am Bridget Belgiovine, the athletic director at the University of Wisconsin at LaCrosse and currently serving as a Division III vice president. I have one announcement. If you did not receive the packet of information on the governance and membership issues, the national office would be happy to send them to you. They were sent to your institution, but a call to the national office and Dan Dutcher would be happy to send you additional copies.
I, too, would like to thank NACDA for the opportunity to do this presentation. Feedback from you, our membership, is critical in this process. I'd like to make a special thank you to two people who are co-chairing the Task Force, both of whom have been unable to be with us. That is Dan Bridges from the California Institute of Technology and Jim Appleton, the president at the Redlands who has done, what I think is an absolutely outstanding job chairing a very delicate and very difficult Task Force.
The 22 members of the Task Force, of which, to my far right, on the Championship Subcommittee aspect is Linda Moulton from Clark University; Larry Shiner from Jersey City State College. To my far left is Dan Dutcher, who is, as you know, the Division III chief of staff for the NCAA. In the back, handing out forms, is Mary Beth Ruscamp the assistant chief of staff. Directly to my left is Dennis Collins, the executive director of the North Coast Athletic Conference. These are just a few of the 22 members. You saw some earlier. There are three members of the Championship Subcommittee who are also unable to be with us today and they are the chair, Bob Williams from Swarthmore College; Mary Jo Gunning from Marywood College; and Rocky Carzo from Tufts University. Rocky is out of the country. Those are the members of the Championship Subcommittee of whom you already heard reports from.
These 22 individuals reflect what I think is the best thinking of our membership. They have a diversity of experiences and their backgrounds to match, will prove as we continue to dialogue, to be the best for our division. They are committed to doing what is best for Division III at a time when we are all moving into a bit of uncertainty. You can be assured the dialogue is hearty. The debate, at times, is sometimes difficult, but the end result will be the best for our division.
I'd like to give you a brief overview of the Championship Committee's progress since the January convention. As you recall, in the 1996 convention, we handed out a convention survey. We also, at that time, discussed the guiding principles for championships, which you have on your sheets in front of you. The Task Force also discussed their recommendation to support the expansion of championship opportunities within our current structure at an approximate cost of $765,000, of which you also have on one of those sheets.
We also, at that time, discussed a subdivision model that was based on an index of enrollment and sports sponsorship for championship purposes only, in the eight team sports -- men's and women's basketball, football, men's and women's soccer, baseball, softball and women's volleyball. The Task Force then reviewed the convention survey which indicated that 56 percent of our membership favored some type of subdivision. Those responses were strongest in the Midwest and weakest in the East. We then presented those survey results as a Task Force. Each of the subcommittee chairs, myself and the two co-chairs, presented to the Presidents Commission along with the guiding principle that you have in front of you. The enhancement package and that index subdivision model were all presented to the presidents. If you're thinking back to the current survey, that subdivision model was Model B. That all was presented in March at the Commission meeting.
At that time, the Presidents Commission requested, after discussion, that the Task Force undertake additional review and deliberations regarding championships. They affirmed the guiding principles and recommended two additional principles, which I would draw your attention to on that sheet as, numbers 11 and 12. They have been added since the convention. Eleven indicating that student-athletes should have proportionate opportunities to participate in postseason play. Number 12 indicates that teams from comparable institutions should face one another in championship competition. These guiding principles will now be what we will use in our championships work.
In response to the Presidents Commission and their recommendations, the Task Force developed four additional subdivision and subgrouping models and very deliberately discussed each in relation to postseason play in the eight team sports in which our institution exceeds 200 sponsoring members. Those same that we just addressed.
Communication and input remained a priority and continues to remain a priority for both the Task Force and our Steering Committee, which also discusses all of these issues, as well, as evidenced by membership updates correspondence you've received from myself and President Corrigan and NCAA News articles, in an effort to gain greater input and in preparation for our recommendations to the presidents in their June meeting. A recent survey was distributed requesting an institutional response on some key fundamental issues, championships expansion and five subdivision and/or subgrouping models for championship purposes in the eight team sports.
We have heard there's been a little bit of misunderstanding. I'd like to clarify two terms for you. One is what we meant by subdivision. Subdivision divides our membership into two groups with multiple champions, or two separate championships. Subgrouping divides our membership into more than two groups. What you saw on the survey was a four subgrouping model. Ultimately, they end in a "single" national championship. Hopefully, that will clarify this.
While we do recognize the short turnaround, the preliminary results from that survey were from 207 respondents, which is approximately 50 percent of our membership. With those results and the written comments, we felt that they were very helpful and I might add, much appreciated, particularly, given the turnaround time. Based on the calls that almost all of us have received from member institutions and from our colleagues, we know additional surveys are forthcoming. They will be tabulated and final results will appear in an upcoming NCAA News. We'll talk a little bit about it today, but you'll see final results in the NCAA News.
What we learned from the preliminary results and I'll break it down, first, are the fundamental issues. We learned, from the membership, there is strong interest for single national championships. We learned there was strong interest in championship expansion. There was strong interest in automatic bids. We learned there is strong interest in the principle of subdivision and/or subgrouping.
What we learned from the preliminary results dealing with specific models is there was very strong support for championships expansion, which was Model A. The membership does favorably desire some type of subdivision. Model B came out. Subgrouping is Model F. However, we also noted there were high levels of undesirability responses for both of those models.
At our most recent meeting three days ago, and in response to the Presidents Commission directive, the survey results of January and the recent one and a significant amount of membership feedback, the Task Force agreed to forward the following two recommendations to the Presidents Commission later this month. First, the Task Force unanimously recommended support of Model A, which is championships expansion. Let me briefly summarize what that will include. You have that model in front of you. This recommendation relates the administration of the 1997-98 Division III budget, that is, the 3.18 percent. Those dollars equate to approximately $7.78 million. This recommendation will not have and will not be required legislation. So, you will not see legislation in January for this expansion.
The $765,000 expansion, which includes consideration of all of our provisional membership in the number, money will be taken from the projected surplus which, at this time, is approximately $2.15 million above what we currently have. Our projected championships expansion with that enhancement package for 1997-98 will be approximately $6.4 million. Mathematically, if you figure it out, there will be a balance of approximately $1.3 million. That will allow us to have a substantial reserve, which our presidents have mandated. It will also allow us to do other division-wide programming and opportunities, for example, a conference grant program. That's where the balance comes from. Keep in mind, however, those figures are based on the CBS contract. We would like to think they will always go up, but there is a potential that it might go down. We do, as a division, have a responsibility for that particular budget. That is the first recommendation that will go forward to the presidents.
Recommendation number two is that the Task Force nearly unanimously agreed to present all five championship models and to work with our Presidents Commission to continue dialogue within the membership and present these models in a forum in January. We do not recommend the sponsorship of legislation at the 1997 Convention. Let me sight some rationale for that decision by the Task Force. Number one, we felt the need to further consider implications of subdividing and/or subgrouping on the implementation of the NCAA, and particularly, the Division III governance structure, including these three areas - the Division III committee structure. What implications would that have? The national office staffing. If we needed to increase staff, the division would have to pay for that if it were Division III specific only and then, the balance of power with the other divisions.
The second rationale was a lack of clear consensus regarding how championships should be subdivide or subgrouped. There appears to be support for retaining a single national championship, as I indicated earlier, in those eight team sports. But, there's also confusion regarding the concept of subdivision and subgrouping.
The third was an opportunity for us to better define short-term and long-term trends in membership growth including the likely actions of Division II in this area which may not be fully defined until the 1998 convention. You heard this morning from our executive director, Cedric Dempsey, that Division III is not dealing with their membership issues at this point in time, but it may come forward in 1998.
Four, is the need to better define the financial implications of all of the models especially Models C through F, including bracket sizes, travel and per diem expenses. These financial figures were fairly well established for Model B, but the precise estimates have not been garnered at this point for Models C through F. Another reason was the possible application of the concept of subdivision and subgrouping to other team sports and individual sports within our division. There were several written comments from the membership regarding what about other team sports and what about all the individual sports in any of the subdivision or subgrouping models?
Another is the need to permit the Championships Committee to review and possibly improve selection criteria in the eight team sports including those that would have been affected and are going to be affected by Model A, as well as time to assess the effects of what we're calling fresh blood initiative proposed by the Task Force to preclude representatives from the same institution and the same conference from serving back to back, as Judy Sweet indicated a few minutes earlier.
Possible ramifications of the new transfer legislation that, at this point, you have not heard about that the Division III Steering Committee will propose for legislation at the 1997 convention. That transfer legislation will now include that a transfer must have been academically and athletically eligible, had they stayed at their previous institution. That, we are planning to put forth as legislation in January.
The last, is the recognition that our membership has the opportunity to sponsor proposed legislation to create championships subdivisions or subgroupings if it so desires and we fully acknowledge that may well happen in preparation for the 1997 convention.
So, what are our next steps? Our recommendations you've just heard will be forwarded to the Presidents Commission by the two co-chairs of the Task Force. The presidents will meet June 25 and 26. We will await their responses to the recommendations. We would like to hear some feedback regarding the possibility of regional seminars yet this fall in anticipation of the January convention. We will then plan for an NCAA Convention Forum to address all of the models that have been presented. As you heard from the first group, our desire is for your continued feedback and input regarding all of the models and the expansion package that you have in front of you.
In conclusion, which will leave us plenty of time for questions, the Task Force remains committed to acting in the best interest of Division III, particularly, as we move into our new federated structure. The implications for subdivision or subgrouping are significant. We need greater understanding of all of the models, increased dialogue and a continued, thoughtful approach is necessary prior to any changes. We fully recognize the existing championships expansion model is also going to be under scrutiny. We expect you will scrutinize that and that will also need to be dealt with.