Now that the Division III membership has decided to stick together rather than split into separate groups, it may be refocusing on a theme often voiced during a legislative reform movement earlier this decade – to bring member institutions’ practices more in line with the division’s philosophies.

After enacting several measures during its Future of Division III movement to renew the commitment to philosophical tenets – including acting to promote broad-based programs through increases in sport-sponsorship requirements and to broaden student-athlete participation by mandating minimum numbers of team members and contests – the division took another step by establishing a review process to hold members accountable for meeting those standards.

An audit process approved at the 2007 NCAA Convention was billed then as an answer to continuing growth because it could cause institutions that chronically are unable to meet the requirements to reconsider whether Division III is a good fit for the school, or face the loss of active membership status.

The Division III Membership Committee is responsible for reviewing schools’ compliance with various obligations of active membership. Those obligations don’t just include the sport-sponsorship and participation standards; they also include educationally oriented requirements that were adopted at the same time the audit process was improved.

In addition to checking sports sponsorship, the committee also is monitoring whether institutions annually are sending a voting delegate to the Convention (to ensure engagement in Division III discussions) and participating at least once every three years in the Regional Rules Seminars (to encourage an understanding of the division’s rules and responsibilities of membership).

Only a handful of Division III institutions were discovered to have failed to meet those requirements during the first year of the audit process, and while those schools now find themselves on probation and at risk of losing grants or championships access with a repeat violation, it remains to be seen whether the new requirements might ultimately result in some schools surrendering their Division III affiliation.

During a review of the first year of the process during its June meeting, the membership committee restated its support for the requirements, though members did acknowledge concerns expressed during Division III’s recent Town Hall Meetings on membership growth about the 10-year probationary period that results from a first-time violation. The committee indicated a willingness to review the penalty structure.

The Town Hall Meetings, however, also seemed to indicate continuing support for the recently increased requirements.

As a conference commissioner put it during the first of the meetings, in Indianapolis: “If people want to park their programs in Division III, they need to pay attention. They need to show up.”

One membership committee member noted that the program seeks to be “encouraging rather than punitive,” and another said the recently enacted standards not only are appropriate for holding the membership accountable, but are “not too stringent, not difficult to meet.”

Now, as an expanding Division III explores alternatives to breaking up into smaller pieces, the focus shifts to ensuring that a diverse membership continues not only to share – but also to observe – a shared philosophy.