By Kassy Perry
As a former member of the National Collegiate Equestrian Association (NCEA) National Advisory Board, a UC Davis alum, the parent of a former Division I equestrian athlete, and an avid competitor on the A circuit for the past 50 years, I’ve spent decades watching collegiate equestrian advance through the sheer strength, grit, and ambition of young women.
To think of what it was like on the club team at UC Davis in 1979 to watching my daughter compete at the NCAA D1 level in 2011 to now watching NCEA Nationals at the World Equestrian Center in Ocala–collegiate riding has grown dramatically in such a short time.
When my daughter first joined TCU, many top riders weren’t yet fully sold on the idea of collegiate competition. Now, the best-of-the-best from the East and West Coasts ride on NCAA teams. It’s incredible to experience it first-hand.
Unfortunately, I’ve also come to recognize a pattern that is keeping women from receiving the full recognition and opportunity they deserve within the NCAA structure.
For repeated years, the Intercollegiate Horse Shows Association (IHSA) has split the vote and rallied NCAA Convention delegates to oppose bringing Division III equestrian into the NCAA umbrella. These were pivotal opportunities to align our sport with every other NCAA pathway.
The last time this came to the floor for a vote was in 2020 with the support from the NCAA Committee on Women’s Athletics; the proposal ultimately failed. Not from lack of interest, but from organized opposition driven by two men within IHSA leadership.
Because equestrian still does not have DIII status, schools lack a clear and accessible pathway to elevate their existing club or IHSA teams into NCAA programs. In every other NCAA sport, the DI/DII/DIII ladder exists to meet schools where they are. Equestrian remains the exception. Because of that, equestrian is still treated as an NCAA “Emerging Sport,” not a “Championship Sport.”
The loss is measurable: fewer schools can make the jump, fewer scholarships are offered, fewer women compete in a fully resourced, championship governed environment.
This isn’t a technicality. It’s a structural barrier that has delayed growth for years and is now being used by University of California, Davis (UC Davis) leadership as a reason to drop their D1 program.
IHSA undeniably serves an important purpose. It introduces new people to our sport, broadens access, and allows men and women to compete together—how it is at regular horse shows. For countless riders, it’s a positive, formative experience.
But IHSA is not NCAA Equestrian.
NCAA programs offer women athletes scholarships and demand higher training intensity, sports performance resources, and competitive standards. These are fundamentally different models serving different aims. There is no reason both cannot coexist: IHSA as a welcoming, developmental gateway; NCAA as the high performance, scholarship supported pinnacle.
Plus, in terms of UC Davis, the club/IHSA teams and the D1 program coexist incredibly well. The club teams haven’t experienced less interest, less support, or less riders because UC Davis added D1 in 2018—in fact, every program has flourished.
The insistence on treating this as a zero sum game harms student-athletes, not institutions.
How many women have lost out on athletic scholarships, national caliber competition, and institutional investment because of these votes?
How many schools would have transitioned by now if NCAA DIII existed, especially those for whom DI or DII is not feasible?
Robert “Bob” Cacchione, IHSA’s founder, and Peter Cashman, IHSA’s Executive Director, have been vocal and active in opposing NCAA DIII equestrian expansion in the past. That’s a matter of record over multiple NCAA convention cycles.
Why would leaders who say they support collegiate riding stand against a pathway that expands opportunities, equity, scholarships, and competitive excellence for women?
Is the aim to preserve IHSA’s market share? To avoid program migration? To maintain control over the largest slice of collegiate riding? If not, then what is the rationale for opposing DIII within the NCAA—the same structure every other sport uses to meet schools where they are. Blocking DIII doesn’t “protect” equestrian, it prevents it from maturing into a full, equitable NCAA sport. It keeps opportunities bottlenecked at the top and restricts growth at the level where most colleges actually operate.
IHSA can continue to do what it does best: introduce riders to the sport, diversify participation, and offer co ed opportunities. NCAA Equestrian can do what it does best: develop elite women athletes in a fully resourced, scholarship supported, championship level environment.
We don’t have to choose. But for years, leadership choices have forced exactly that—at the expense of women. And now? UC Davis Chancellor Gary May and Athletic Director Rocko DeLuca are using it as the reason to cut one of their school’s highest-achieving women’s programs.
As someone who has lived this sport for decades in multiple roles—and continues to compete at the highest level—I’m asking for a course correction. Let’s move past protectionism. Let’s embrace the full NCAA pathway. Let’s give schools a realistic on ramp. And most importantly, let’s give women what they have earned: the same structure and status every other NCAA athlete takes for granted.
It’s time to stop torpedoing progress and start building it.