In making the recommendations, the project team acknowledged that clear-cut support does not exist for either approach in Division II.

The January survey, which attracted responses from about 75 percent of Division II schools, revealed that approximately half of the responding institutions apparently do not favor adoption of a tuition/fees/books scholarship model.

However, survey respondents were evenly split on the separate question of whether to continue to study the issue (49 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed). As a result, the project team concluded that there is sufficient interest in continuing to explore a partial need-based aid model, and that it therefore should attempt to put forth the best model that it can for consideration by the membership.

The model recommended by the project team is the result of that effort.

The partial need-based aid proposal calls for calculation of need to be based on federal guidelines, and would make an institution's financial aid office responsible for making all professional judgments regarding a student-athlete's demonstrated need, subject to review by the appropriate Division II committee.

The proposal also would permit funding for aid beyond the value of tuition, fees and books to come from any institutional source, including the athletics department. However, any such aid must be based on demonstrated need.

The project team recommended limiting permissible aid to tuition, fees, books, room and board and excluding additional aid up to cost of attendance because a majority (56 percent) of respondents favoring the partial need-based aid approach said they prefer such a limit.

However, because the project team proposes that the tuition/fees/books scholarship be equivalent to the "value" of those components, schools would have the flexibility to permit part of the scholarship amount to be applied to room and board, and to permit a student-athlete to apply job income or an academic scholarship to the balance of the tuition/fees/books amount.

Equivalency limits

The proposed partial need-based aid model does not call for changes in the current maximum limits on equivalencies.

However, the project team put forth a separate proposal to adjust equivalency limits in selected sports -- a proposal it anticipates could be withdrawn from consideration if the membership approves the partial need-based aid model.

A majority of schools responding to the February survey indicated they prefer "no change" in equivalency limits. However, at least 40 percent of respondents indicated support for the reduction of equivalency limits in three sports -- women's crew, football and wrestling -- and two-thirds of the responding schools favored continuing consideration of adjustments in current limits.

As a result, the project team recommended these reductions in the sports:

The project team also recommended a reduction in the sport of men's lacrosse, even though the percentage of schools favoring such a reduction (31 percent) did not exceed 40 percent as in the other three sports.

The project team recommended a reduction from 10.8 to 9.9 equivalencies, noting that lacrosse is the only Division II sport involving both men and women in which the men's sport has a higher equivalency limit than for women. The reduction would make men's and women's limits equal.

More than four-fifths of survey respondents (82 percent) indicated support for using the same maximum equivalency in Division II sports sponsored both for men and women.

In another recommendation, the project team proposes setting a limit in cross country for schools that do not sponsor the sport of track. The project team proposes that such schools be limited to five equivalencies for men and five for women.

Schools that sponsor both cross country and track still would be permitted 12.6 equivalencies each for men and women.

Football subdivisions

The project team also considered the possibility of establishing subdivisions in football.

In the February survey, approximately 60 percent of respondents indicated opposition to creating two football subdivisions in Division II. In addition, 55 percent indicated they opposed further review of the issue by the project team.

Based on those responses, the project team recommended to the Presidents Council that subdivision not be pursued.

Latest actions

The project team's recommendations are the latest actions resulting from the adoption of 1996 Convention Proposal No. 29, which directed a study and evaluation of Division II financial aid.

The resolution called for a progress report at the 1997 Convention. During the Convention, the project team discussed the results of a financial aid survey conducted last fall. It also solicited membership comments on its work and announced that it would mail another survey to institutions seeking further input.

The project team's current recommendations were formulated in response to results of that survey.

Proposal No. 29 also directed that a decision be made no later than the 1998 Convention on whether to propose an alternative to the current Division II financial aid model or adjustments to that model.

The Division II Management Council Transition Team will review the project team's recommendations during its April 16 meeting in Tucson.