The NCAA News - News & Features

Survey reveals gap in II between aid and limits

Survey results and other information intended for use in a full discussion of financial aid issues at the 1997 Convention were mailed November 1 to Division II members.

The survey sought information regarding equivalency averages in each sport sponsored by Division II members. Sixty-five percent of the 289 active and provisional members of Division II responded to the survey.

Survey results were reviewed by the NCAA Division II Financial Aid Project Team, which noted that schools were asked to indicate preferences regarding changes in equivalency limits without knowing what the actual equivalency averages are in each sport.

In seven men's and five women's sports in which at least 100 of the responding institutions provide countable aid, the percentage of members preferring no change in equivalency limits for those sports ranged from 64 to 82 percent of respondents.

The men's sports are football (sponsored by 101 respondents), soccer (103), golf (121), tennis (121), cross country/track (136), baseball (162) and basketball (185). The women's sports are softball (142), cross country/track (145), tennis (147), volleyball (168) and basketball (182)

In only one of those sports -- football -- did as many as a quarter of the respondents show interest in increasing or decreasing the equivalency limit. Twenty-eight percent of the 101 institutions offering countable aid favored a decrease from the current limit of 36 equivalencies.

Institutions awarding aid in other sports -- including field hockey, men's and women's lacrosse, men's and women's swimming, and wrestling -- similarly recommended no change in equivalency limits.

Aid significantly below limits

Most responding institutions, however, also indicated that they award significantly less aid in all Division II sports than is permitted by NCAA legislation (see accompanying chart).

Men's and women's basketball are the only sports -- among those in which at least 100 schools provide aid -- in which schools award an average of 75 percent or more of permissible aid. Responding schools award an average of 7.5 equivalencies for women and 8.0 for men in the sport, which permits 10 equivalencies for each gender.

Schools offering aid in football award an average of 24.1 equivalencies -- approximately one-third fewer than the permissible 36.

In other men's sports, average equivalencies include 5.0 in baseball (9.0 permissible); 2.9 in cross country/track (12.6 permissible); 1.5 in golf (3.6 permissible); 4.9 in soccer (9.0 permissible); and 1.8 in tennis (4.5 permissible). In other women's sports, average equivalencies include 2.8 in cross country/track (12.6 permissible); 3.8 in softball (7.2 permissible); 1.8 in tennis (6.0 permissible) and 4.5 in volleyball (8.0 permissible).

The gap between aid awarded by Division II members and the equivalency limits may become important in consideration of one of four financial aid concepts that the Division II Financial Aid Project Team will ask the membership to discuss at the 1997 Convention.

Those concepts are described in the November 1 mailing to Division II institutions. Among the concepts is one focusing on the possibility of adjusting maximum equivalency limits in men's and women's sports to more closely reflect the level of aid being awarded by most Division II institutions.

It is possible that Division II members' preferences regarding whether to maintain or change current equivalency limits may shift with knowledge of the gaps that exist sport-by-sport between the maximum permissible limits and aid that is being awarded at Division II institutions.

Total of four concepts

That is just one possible topic of conversation anticipated by the Division II project team at the Convention. The project team is asking the membership to consider a total of four concepts -- three in addition to a possible adjustment in equivalency limits:

* Maintain the current types of financial aid that can be provided to a Division II student-athlete and maintain the current limits on equivalencies that can be provided in each sport.

* Create two subdivisions in the sport of football, each with different equivalency limits.

* Establish a model in which institutions may award athletics scholarships up to the value of tuition, fees and books; anything beyond that value (up to the cost of attendance) would be awarded on the basis of a student's demonstrated need.

The four concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Division II membership could pursue a combination of the concepts.

The recent mailing includes a document summarizing possible outcomes that may result from Division II adoption of each of the concepts.

For example, the project team suggests that the following outcomes could result from an adjustment in equivalency limits:

* The process of adjustment provides an opportunity to review current limits.

* Increases in current equivalencies in some sports will assist institutions in remaining competitive in recruiting quality student-athletes.

* Decreases in current equivalencies may result in cost savings or reallocation of dollars for some institutions.

* Change of the current Division II financial aid system by adjusting equivalencies will be least disruptive to the membership's application of the current financial aid model.

* Changes in equivalency limits could continue to provide institutions with greater flexibility and control over their athletics budgets than changes suggested in other possible models.

* If a sport is fully funded, decreases in current equivalency limits could reduce opportunities for student-athletes, and increases in current equivalency limits could increase costs for an institution.

The project team similarly suggests outcomes for the other three concepts.

1. No change to the current financial aid model:

* Provides institutions with flexibility and control over their athletics budgets.

* Gives additional time to review related issues in the areas of membership requirements, championships and the Division II enhancement fund.

* Acknowledges that current rules and their application generally are accepted by the membership.

* Current legislation allows room for cost savings, since many institutions are below the current level.

* Current competition opportunities will not be interrupted.

* The current financial aid model allows Division II programs to compete for quality student-athletes.

* Perceived protection of Division II student-athlete welfare (in other words, student-athletes will be treated the same as other students who qualify for talent or merit scholarships).

* Survey results indicate that many Division II institutions are below the maximum equivalency limits.

* There are inconsistencies among institutions in defining "countable aid."

2. Create two subdivisions in the sport of Division II football:

* Net effect may be an increase in the number of play-off spots.

* Could reduce the costs associated with sponsoring football for some Division II institutions.

* May create parity among those Division II institutions currently sponsoring football.

* If the current number of play-off spots is retained, they would have to be divided between the two subdivisions.

* May allow institutions to retain football for purposes of enrollment enhancement and may increase participation opportunities for student-athletes.

* May have a negative impact on conference membership.

* May be limited by the geographical location of certain institutions and may provide little savings if institutions have to travel greater distances to compete against institutions within their subdivision.

* Objective factors have not yet been determined that can be used to equitably divide the division in football.

* Other sports may want the same opportunity to subdivide.

3. Establish a need-based aid model:

* Advantages and disadvantages of this model change, depending on the equivalency level.

* Advantages and disadvantages of this model change, depending on whether an institution has high or low tuition and fees costs.

* May create a lack of consistency among institutions regarding needs assessment.

* Could have the effect of diminishing the success of recruiting academically sound students who do not qualify for need-based aid.

* Division II institutions may be at a disadvantage in recruiting "blue-chip" student-athletes.

* Could result in less total gift aid for full-need students.

* Will disadvantage the non-need recruited student-athlete.

Comments, questions sought

While the project team has put forth concepts and possible outcomes for discussion by the membership, it continues to solicit suggestions -- including additional financial aid concepts.

The November 1 mailing includes a form on which Division II members may send comments or questions to the project team. Division II institutions are asked to return the form by November 22, to enable the project team to review reactions at its December 2 meeting in Dallas.

The project team also will continue to organize the Convention discussion of financial aid issues during that meeting.

The project team's work is in response to the adoption of 1996 Convention Proposal No. 29, a resolution that directed a study and evaluation of Division II financial aid. The resolution calls for a progress report on that study at the 1997 Convention and a decision on whether to propose -- no later than the 1998 Convention -- an alternative financial aid model or adjustments to the division's current model.