National Collegiate Athletic Association

The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- November 9, 1998

Divisions I and II presidents take action on financial issues

Division II: Presidents Council approves fund distribution plan

ATLANTA -- After two years of discussion, surveying and analyzing, Division II finally has a plan for distributing its $3 million enhancement fund.

The Division II Presidents Council, which met October 27, approved a plan that will distribute the money as follows:

  • One-third divided equally among all Division II institutions.

  • One-third to conferences based on their performance in the Division II Men's and Women's Basketball Championships.

  • One-third to conferences based on the number of conference championships they sponsor.

    At the end, the presidents favored the version they chose over a model that would have distributed one-third of the enhancement fund to member institutions and divided the remainder among conferences based on their performance in the men's and women's basketball championships.

    At its August meeting, the Presidents Council had expressed a preference for the option that it eventually chose. However, at the time it noted concern that some conferences could be adversely affected by the third part of the plan and had discussed using the division's unallocated funds to help those conferences in the short term.

    The Division II Management Council, which met October 19-20, supported the distribution method that was chosen, but it advised the Presidents Council that the question of whether or how to "make conferences whole" should be addressed through the regular budget process.

    In particular, the Management Council noted that the payouts from the basketball championships are based on a rolling six-year average, which means that payments from that source vary from year to year, making it impossible to readily identify which conferences will be adversely affected by the new plan.

    The presidents requested that the Division II Budget and Finance Committee place the matter on the agenda for its March 1999 meeting. (The presidents also requested specific recommendations on possible uses of the division's unallocated funds.)

    The Management Council also advised the presidents that safeguards will be established to make certain that only legitimate conference championships are used in the computation. The Division II Championships Committee will address that issue.

    The change in distribution will take effect in the 2000-2001 academic year. Until then, the enhancement fund will be distributed through the current approach -- one-half directly to member institutions and one-half to member conferences based on performance in the Division II Men's Basketball Championship.

    Although the decision has been made, the membership will have an opportunity to discuss the new distribution plan at the 1999 Convention in San Antonio.

    Geographic proximity

    The Presidents Council also reviewed the progress of the division's effort to eliminate the geographic-proximity policy for championships site selection.

    In reviewing Convention legislation, the presidents discussed Proposal No. 2-23, which seeks to terminate the existing geographic-proximity policy.

    At its October meeting, the Management Council noted that it opposes No. 2-23 although it strongly supports eliminating geographic proximity. The Management Council, based on a recommendation from the Division II Championships Committee, said it was concerned that the proposal could have unintended effects (in particular, damage to the division's "regionalization" concept, which rewards teams for competing in their own regions).

    Rather than opposing Proposal No. 2-23, the presidents -- noting that they have the authority to make changes to Bylaw 31, where the existing policy is located in the Division II Manual -- asked that they be provided with alternative legislation for their January pre-Convention meeting. They hope to approve the changes at that time.

    The geographic-proximity issue has received major attention in Division II over the last year in particular. In the fall of 1997, the membership received a report from the Championships Committee about various championships issues, including geographic proximity. During a forum on the subject at the 1998 Convention, a straw vote indicated a strong desire on the part of the membership to do away with the policy.

    This spring, the Championships Committee recommended to the Management Council and the Presidents Council that the geographic-proximity policy be abolished, and both groups accepted that recommendation. However, no formal action has been taken to change the legislation (Bylaw 31.1.3.2.5), and that has prompted the membership proposal. It is sponsored by all members of Rocky Mountain Athletic and Sunshine State Conferences and 16 other institutions.

    The Executive Committee in the previous NCAA structure developed the geographic-proximity policy as a cost-saving measure. Although the policy appears to save money, it has proved to be controversial for a number of Division II conferences and institutions. Because Division II now has more control over how its resources are spent (as a result of membership restructuring), it is now possible for the policy to be changed by the division acting alone.

    Other legislation

    Otherwise, the presidents supported Management Council positions on proposed Convention legislation.

    The only difference relates to Proposal No. 2-1, which would permit Simon Fraser University, a Canadian institution, to become an NCAA member. The Presidents Council did join the Management Council in opposing the legislation and also determined that the proposal is out of order. It was noted that while the provision that the proposal seeks to amend is a federated provision, there also is a dominant provision that would have to be amended but that cannot be amended by a division acting alone. Noting that the NCAA Constitution clearly describes a membership of institutions from the United States and its possessions and territories, the presidents also referred the issue to the NCAA Executive Committee for guidance on how the issue is viewed from an Association-wide perspective.

    The Management Council opposed the measure because NCAA regulations were created with the understanding that the Association is to be composed of institutions within the U.S., its territories and possessions. The group noted potential problems with academic accreditation, possible conflicts with the laws of other countries and trademark registration issues as factors that would need to be addressed before international members could be accepted.

    In other legislative recommendations, the presidents joined the Management Council in opposing Proposal Nos. 2-9, which relates to two-year college transfers; 2-10, which would permit an exception to the one-time transfer exception in Division II under certain circumstances; and 2-19, which would create protected status for the Division II Men's Lacrosse Championship.

    The Management Council and Presidents Council both voted to support Proposal No. 2-22, which would permit contact with a two-year college football prospect at the conclusion of the two-year college prospect's football season. Neither group took a position on Nos. 2-5 and 2-18. All other Division II Convention legislation is sponsored by the Division II Presidents Council.

    Convention

    The Presidents Council also approved the recommendations of the Division II Convention Planning Project Team.

    As a result, the Division II Issues Forum will continue at the upcoming Convention, this time with the understanding that the forum is open to all Division II delegates. Tentative topics for the 1999 Issues Forum, which will be conducted the afternoon of Sunday, January 10, will be Student-Athlete Advisory Committee issues and Faculty Athletics Representative Association issues. Round-table discussions will be conducted for each topic. In addition, an open forum also will be provided.

    The presidents also approved a chief executive officers' luncheon, which will occur at noon January 10. Topics include the Division II strategic plan and diversity issues within Division II.

    Other highlights

    Division II Presidents Council
    October 27/Atlanta

  • Re-elected the following Presidents Council members: Patricia P. Cormier, Longwood College (Region 2); Bernard W. Franklin, St. Augustine's College (at large); and Arend D. Lubbers, Grand Valley State University (Region 3).

  • Ratified the choices of the Division II Management Council for membership on that body. The Management Council re-elected Clint Bryant, Augusta State University (Peach Belt Conference) and Doug Echols, commissioner of the South Atlantic Conference. New members whose terms are effective immediately are Dianthia Ford, Shaw University (Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association), Gail Fults, Humboldt State University (Pacific West Conference); and Bruce Harger, Drury College (independent institutions). New members whose terms are effective in January are Dave Coffey, Northwood University (Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference); Lisa Colvin, Southern Arkansas University (Gulf South Conference); Ed Harris, West Texas A&M University (Lone State Conference); and Michael Marcil, commissioner of the North Central Conference.

  • Accepted the recommendation of the Management Council that the following changes be made in the format of the Division II Manual: (1) Numerical gaps will be eliminated; (2) text that references Divisions I and III will be deleted; and (3) a separate charge will be created identifying bylaw cites in Divisions I and III that will correspond to bylaw cites of similar legislation in Division II. This issue will continue to be discussed with the other two divisions.

  • Voted to eliminate the award of watches to second-place teams at the Division II Men's and Women's Basketball Championships to provide consistency in the awards program for all Division II championships.

  • Approved meetings with the chairs of the team governing sports committees and the chairs of the individual-team governing sports committees in alternate years.

  • Approved topics for the joint meeting of the Presidents Council and the Management Council that will be conducted at the 1999 Convention: strategic planning, diversity issues, role of the senior woman administrator in Division II; restricted-earnings coach lawsuit and the potential impact on Division II; review of the projected number of provisional number of provisional members that will become active in the next three to five years and the potential impact on the Division II budget; distribution of the Division II enhancement fund; and issues raised by the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

    Other highlights

    Division II Management Council
    October 19-20/Indianapolis

  • Reviewed a proposal from the NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics to mandate the creation of the senior woman administrator position and referred the proposal to the Division II Diversity Project Team.

  • Voted to support legislation that would require a championship schedule to be adjusted to accommodate institutions that are not able to compete on a particular day for religious reasons. The legislation also would provide sports committees with a waiver opportunity if accommodating such an institution is not possible. The change would be effective in August 1999.

    The Management Council also approved Championships Committee recommendations for rules changes in women's softball and track and field.

  • Issued an interpretation confirming that, effective August 1, 1999, nondegree-applicable remedial courses, taken subsequent to a student-athlete's first year of collegiate enrollment, may not be considered when calculating the student-athlete's grade-point average for continuing-eligibility purposes.

    Rationale for action on enhancement fund decision

    At its October 28 meeting, the Division II Presidents Council approved a new formula for distribution of the $3 million Division II enhancement fund (see accompanying story). Because the decision is a significant one, the Presidents Council is providing this rationale to the division, explaining why it chose to make a decision at this time and why it made the choice it did:

    Timing

    Why was the decision made at this meeting?

    A. Presidents Council representatives have discussed this issue extensively with their colleagues, and they believed they had enough information to make a decision at this meeting. The Presidents Council has the authority to make this policy change and it does not require a legislative change.

    B. The issue has been debated for two years. Many individuals in the membership have been asking for a final decision so conferences can begin to plan for the new distribution model.

    C. Making the decision at this time gives the Division II Championships Committee and the Division II Budget and Finance Committee the opportunity to focus on questions surrounding the new distribution model before implementation and also allows the membership to have this information when the new distribution model is explained and discussed at the 1999 NCAA Convention in San Antonio.

    Model

    Why was this particular distribution formula selected?

    A. This model reflects many elements of the division's philosophy statement and encourages certain positive behaviors in the Division II membership.

    (1) The model rewards competitive excellence in the two Division II championships (men's and women's basketball) that have automatic qualification for member conferences, that are sponsored by the most Division II institutions (95 percent) and that have the highest average of scholarship equivalencies when compared to the maximum equivalency amount in each sport.

    (2) The model enhances championship participation opportunities at the conference level by rewarding conferences for the number of championships they sponsor for their student-athletes.

    B. The Presidents Council agreed that this model is the best for the division even though a few conferences may experience a decrease in the funds they receive.

    C. By increasing by $500,000 the portion of the enhancement distributed to Division II conferences, the Presidents Council is affirming its support of the conference structure as an important component of the Division II governance process and structure.