National Collegiate Athletic Association |
The NCAA News - News and FeaturesJanuary 19, 1998 NCAA CONVENTION -- Division II vote strengthens student-athlete involvement
BY JACK L. COPELAND ATLANTA -- Division II members voted during their first Convention business session following restructuring to strengthen student-athlete involvement in regional and national administration of athletics and exclude Pell Grants from being included in a full grant-in-aid. The division, meeting January 12 in Atlanta, also narrowly defeated a proposal to reduce the limit on equivalency grants in football. Concern about a possible voting-machine malfunction prompted the Division II Management Council to review that result following the Convention, but the Management Council determined that the vote is valid. In a near-unanimous vote, delegates approved requiring every Division II conference to form a conference student-athlete advisory committee (SAAC) as a condition of Division II membership. The purpose of the proposal is to promote the involvement of student-athletes in intercollegiate athletics administration and strengthen links between student-athletes at the campus level and the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. Greg Clark of Kennesaw State University, the Peach Belt Conference representative to the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, told delegates that conference SAACs are an "essential link" between campuses and the national committee. James Fallis, director of athletics at the University of Northern Colorado, suggested that conferences draw from their share of a proposed distribution of the Division II enhancement fund to create and support conference-level SAACs. Delegates also approved the Pell Grant measure, despite questions about the application of the legislation in Division II. The original sponsors of the proposal, the Lone Star Conference and the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association, notified delegates that they would not seek a vote on the measure because of those questions, but Kelly J. Higgins, director of athletics at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, later made a motion to consider the proposal. After the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee indicated its support, the proposal was adopted, 124-83 with one abstention. Football equivalencies The day's most debated measure was Proposal No. 6, in which sponsoring institutions sought to decrease the permissible number of football scholarships in Division II from the equivalent of 36 scholarships to 30. The vote defeating the proposal, 75-61 with six abstentions, mirrored the results of a survey early last year by the Division II Financial Aid Transition team, in which a majority of respondents said they preferred no change in equivalency limits but 40 percent of respondents expressed support for cutting football scholarships to 30. As a result of that survey, the Division II Management Council declined to seek any change in the football scholarship limit, but member institutions subsequently proposed the cut. Supporters of the cut, led by Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference Commissioner Thomas R. Wistricil, noted another project team survey finding -- that 60 percent of Division II schools currently offer 30 or fewer scholarships -- and suggested that adoption of the proposal would permit reallocation of funds to women's athletics for achieving gender equity. But opponents expressed doubt that such a reallocation would occur. "Every time we take money away, particularly in athletics, it doesn't come back," said Nathan N. Salant, commissioner of the Gulf South Conference, who also noted that previous cuts in Division II football scholarships resulted in reductions in squad size ranging from 18 to 34 student-athletes at Gulf South institutions. Another commissioner, Doug Echols of the South Atlantic Conference, said it is inappropriate to single out football for financial aid reductions. Although the vote was close, sponsors did not seek reconsideration of the proposal during a scheduled "window of reconsideration" in the business session. However, later in the day, President Edward Hammond of Fort Hays State University asked that the Division II Management Council review the validity of the vote on Proposal No. 6. Hammond said that it appeared several institutions' votes (including Fort Hays State's vote) were not recorded in electronic voting on the measure. The Management Council reviewed the vote during its January 13 post-Convention meeting and confirmed Division II parliamentarian Paul Engelmann's ruling that the outcome cannot be overturned following the conclusion of the voting session. However, the Management Council agreed to review and consider appropriate changes in current voting procedures before the 1999 Convention. Other actions In other voting actions, Division II delegates:
The sponsors of the proposal said they were seeking a more expeditious review of such cases and greater uniformity in penalties imposed. Although there was little debate of the proposal during the business session, concern was raised during other Convention meetings that conferences' abilities to administer such a program vary.
Division II members adopted all other proposals considered during the business session, including an amateurism proposal, three eligibility proposals sponsored by the Division II Presidents Council, and Presidents Council proposals to establish a Divisions I and II Core-Course Review Committee and add two members to the Division II Men's and Women's Tennis Committee. Division II business sessionFollowing are legislative actions taken by delegates attending the Division II business session at the 92nd NCAA Convention in Atlanta. Actions on proposals are listed in the order that the proposals appeared in the Official Notice of the Convention. A full member-by-member listing of all roll-call votes will appear in a future issue of the News. Presidents Council grouping No. 1 (conference student-athlete advisory committees): Adopted, 215-1-1. No. 2 (gambling activities): Adopted, 207-1-1. No. 3 (financial aid -- Pell Grants): Adopted, 124-83-1. No. 4 (maximum equivalency limits -- institutions that sponsor cross country but do not sponsor track): Adopted, 166-42-5 (effective August 1, 2000). No. 5 (maximum equivalency limits -- institutions that sponsor cross country but do not sponsor track): Withdrawn. No. 6 (maximum equivalency limits -- football): Defeated, 67-75-6. No. 7 (spring practice -- football): Adopted, 117-8-4 (effective immediately). Amateurism No. 8 (educational expenses -- national governing bodies): Adopted. Eligibility No. 9 (de minimus violations -- prospective and enrolled student-athletes): Adopted (effective immediately). No. 10 (restoration for receipt of improper benefit): Adopted (effective immediately). No. 11 (joint college/high-school program): Adopted (effective immediately). No. 12 (one-time transfer exception): Defeated. Playing and practice seasons No. 13 (basketball -- annual exemptions): Adopted. No. 14 (basketball -- annual exemptions): Adopted. No. 15 (swimming and diving) -- Adopted. General No. 16 (tryouts -- enrolled students): Adopted. No. 17 (enforcement -- penalties for secondary violations): Defeated. No. 18 (core-course review committee): Adopted (effective immediately). No. 19 (Division II Men's and Women's Tennis Committee): Adopted (effective immediately).
|