Division III Legislation supporting 2 AQs fosters conference stability, enhances student-athlete experience
Stephanie Dutton, Commissioner (United East)
Joe Onderko, Commissioner (Presidents' Athletic Conference)
Tom DiCamillo, Commissioner (SUNYAC)
OXON HILL, Md. - Every institution of higher education offers some type of mathematical courses to challenge its students in the classroom. For NCAA Division III intercollegiate athletics, the mathematical hypothesis is far less complex and more readily predictable: If a Division III conference receives an automatic qualifier because at least six full-member institutions offer a sport, then conferences with at least a dozen schools sponsoring a sport should receive two.
Bylaw 31.3.1.2 states that no conference shall receive more than one AQ per sport; however, during the 2026 convention, the Division III membership will have an opportunity to challenge that rule and the 1:6 ratio that currently determines if a conference receives an automatic qualifier.
One of the key arguments against this legislation is the flawed concern that permitting two automatic qualifiers will unleash chaos on Division III as conferences woo institutions to reach the magic number.
Yes, there will be movement at first and some conferences may dissolve; however, conference stability in Division III will be achieved after a short period of initial controlled change. The likelihood that an institution will leave a twin AQ conference will be vastly reduced, while budget planning becomes infinitely more predictable.
The conference chaos is not the looming future left in the wake of approving two automatic qualifiers; it knocks on every conference member's door today when a sister institution turns off its arena lights for the last time. And that banging is growing louder and more rapid during the scramble to either save their conference or find a landing spot for their athletic programs in a neighboring conference.
No, the greatest threat to stability in Division III conferences is institutional closure and was the argumentative crux in 2022 when membership approved legislation to reduce the AQ minimum from seven to six
That proposal was presented with the rationale that a change would reduce the minimum to provide more stability for conferences due to declining enrollment and fiscal challenges at our institution.
At that time, the proposal stated that it would not change the minimum number of institutions required to form or maintain a multi-sport conference. Yet, three years later in 2025 with no resistance, that very change was proposed and passed resulting in the AQ number being reduced from seven to six as well.
The compelling argument is that the 2025 vote established the ratio of 2/12 (2 AQs for 12 teams) because 1/6 and 2/12 are the same number putting the one AQ per conference rule in conflict with the 1/6 AQ allocation.
Membership changes and conference realignment have persisted despite the promises of the 2022 legislation. Division III has chased the lowest common denominator under the guise of providing stability that has not been attained.
And the scuttling of institutions isn't the only factor impacting the chaos. As colleges and universities make difficult cost-cutting decisions to sunset specific sports programs within a conference, the cascade effect begins as the remaining members look to lure new institutions to maintain the automatic bids.
Or they make the decision to look for more secure pastures by moving their entire athletic program to a neighboring conference. The tsunami just continuously builds. This twin-AQ proposal ultimately helps alleviate that stress point.
In addition, the current bylaw conflicts with itself albeit through a grandfathered exemption with no expiration date for the Middle Atlantic Conference (MAC) which maintains multiple AQs. This advantage for the MAC renders it the sole conference in Division III with expanded access to NCAA Championships.
The legislation does not eliminate what the MAC has; however, it provides an opportunity for all larger conferences to have the same access.
Arguments against the expansion to two automatic bids are self-serving – a simple truth and an expected counterpoint. But reality reveals that in 2024-25, four of 42 Division III conferences accounted for 40.92% of the at-large selections across all team sports. Six conferences accounted for 50.22% of the at-large selections, while 26 conferences received three or less combined at-large selections across all sports.
Conferences in dense Division III locations centers can reduce their conference schedules while meeting their championship minimum requirements because travel is affordable and non-conference contests are accessible. That ability gives an advantage to those conferences for at-large selections.
The legislation is simple:
- 12 core members must sponsor a sport to receive a second AQ
- The second AQ is sport specific and not a blanket for the entire conference
- There is no waiting period or grace period for the second AQ
- The second AQ is available immediately when sport sponsorship reaches 12 or more
- The second AQ is surrendered immediately when sport sponsorship falls below 12 teams
The Division III Philosophy Statement clearly outlines the following principle under Student-Athlete Athletics Experience:
- Support student-athletes in their efforts to reach the highest levels of athletics performance, with a primary emphasis on conference and regional competition, while providing access to national championships
Approving the legislation to grant sports within conferences that sponsor 12 or more teams does exactly that.
What better way to provide an opportunity for student athletes to experience conference and regional competition while providing a fair shot at competing in the NCAA Championships then by allocating two automatic qualifiers to larger conferences?
