The presidents of several colleges expressed their concern about the disparity in Div. III athletics in a recent New York Times article. The article suggests that there is strong support for the splitting of Div. III athletics into two divisions, III and IV. The suggested divisions would be barred from providing athletic scholarships, but one would very clearly be less competitive than the other. Talk of a split in Div. III athletics into two divisions should be opposed by all of those who are in tune to the spirit of Div. III athletics. Div. III athletics were started to preserve amateur athletics and to be a staunch opposite to revenue-making Div. I programs. Given this, how effectively the 420 plus participating colleges are able to compete under the confines of the rules should be left to the intentions of the trustees of their respective institutions. Disparities in endowment size, school population and the vigor with which institutions pursue athletic accomplishments don't change the basic foundation of Div. III athletics: schools that are opposed to profiting from their student-athletes and are against the veiled professional league format of Div. I sports.

The wide variety of interest in athletics by many institutions is the most often cited reason for a split. In my opinion, this criticism serves as the finest argument for the current Div. III setup. Some conferences, such as our own NESCAC, place a high premium on athletic success. Athletic success helps the College and its peer institutions attract high-achieving students who want to continue competing at a high level, fosters a strong alumni base and encourages a strong student community. Other leagues are much less competitive, and their peer institutions-the institutions which they likely compete with for students-probably take a similar attitude towards sports. This is the beauty of the current setup. Unlike Div. I, in which you have to build stadiums of a certain size, offer a certain amount of scholarships, and generally complicate the athlete-institution relationship, Div. III allows schools to adapt their athletic program to their needs. There are many less Vanderbilt Universities in Div. III-schools that have historical ties to other schools in their division but have a commitment to sports incongruent with those of their peer institutions. (For those who don't know Vanderbilt, the university, with the exception of a very good women's basketball team, has a much weaker athletic program than its fellow conference members, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama and Tennnessee.)

There is of course, a self-serving reason Amherst College should oppose a split. Separating Div. III into Div. III and IV would challenge the spirit and intent of Div. III sports. It would be unfair to say that competitive Div. III schools aren't receptive to walk-on athletes. There are certainly limited spots, and a high number of students vying for those few spots on the soccer, football and basketball teams. Nonetheless, it would be incorrect to label Amherst College as excluding students from trying to participate at the varsity level. A Div. IV implies that those that are Div. III aren't true to the spirit of the original Div. III mission. Not only is this implication untrue, but it also damages the image of a school like Amherst, which prides itself in providing incoming students with unimpeded access to activities. Amherst College and its peer institutions should oppose a Div. III split in order to retain claim to the spirit of athletics on campus. The presence of a lower division would suggest that Amherst College and its peers are disingenuous in their claims that athletics are present to complement, not direct a student's life. Our Div. III athletics is a major attraction for some students. For the sake of retaining a high level of prestige for national titles and of retaining the reputation of our athletic values, we should oppose a suggested split in Div. III.

Rom is a junior and runs cross country and track. You can reach him at rcabeza08@amherst.edu.