The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- February 15, 1999

Finding their place

Division II commissioners fill an important communications role in new structure

BY DAVID PICKLE
STAFF WRITER

These are the good times for Division II commissioners.

Not so long ago, full-time Division II commissioners were the exception. Now, 18 of the division's 22 conferences have commissioners who are serving in a full-time capacity.

Also, the new Division II structure has been designed with conferences in mind. The Division II Management Council is based on conference representation, and commissioners are found on the Management Council, the Management Council Subcommittee, the Championships Committee, the Legislation Committee and the Nominating Committee. Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association Commissioner Leon Kerry is heading up the division's ambitious deregulation effort.

It is all remarkably different from as little as 10 years ago when most Division II conferences did not have any full-time staff. The NCAA committee structure provided far more opportunities for Division I involvement than for the other divisions. Representatives to the NCAA Council were filled by region and not by conference.

"Commissioners have had an opportunity to have a larger voice through the restructuring process," said Ralph W. McFillen, commissioner of the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletic Association.

Now the challenge is how to use that voice most effectively.

Different role

Division II commissioners are quick to say that they play a different role than their Division I counterparts. Although they believe they can and should play a leadership role in Division II affairs, they also seem to see their primary role as filling a communication link between the national and local level.

On the surface, national leadership and communication functions would appear easily achievable for commissioners simply because of what commissioners are perceived to be.

But it's not that simple. There is no meaningful national media coverage of Division II affairs; no established communications infrastructure was handed to the divi- sion during restructuring. The fact is that Division II has to work hard to achieve effective communication.

But progress is being made, partly because of a good match between the new structure and the seven-year-old Division II Conference Commissioners Association (DII CCA).

The association provides a forum through which commissioners can discuss issues of national interest. In turn, the conference leaders can take the discussion back to the member institutions, which can lead to more informed decision-making at the Management Council level.

"We find that we are asked for our thoughts on important issues," said Donald C. Landry, commissioner of the Sunshine State Conference and current chair of the DII CCA. "For example, we provided input on distribution of the enhancement fund. Our proposal didn't get adopted, but some aspects of it did.

"The point is, we want to be proactive and not reactive."

Early days

One force behind the creation of the commissioners association was Noel Olson, longtime commissioner of the North Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association.

An early issue was that old Division II perennial -- the enhancement fund.

"I remember negotiating with Dave Gavitt, Tom Frericks and Ced Dempsey," Olson said. "I still remember Dave pointing at me and saying, 'It will be $3 million, $1 million over the next three years -- and don't come back soon!'

"And that's the friendliest thing that was said."

As time passed, the commissioners association grew and became an effective forum for Division II issues.

Doug Echols, commissioner of the South Atlantic Conference and one of two commissioners currently serving on the Division II Management Council, said the association also has provided a way for the commissioners to gain a national perspective.

"It helps the commissioners develop an appreciation for problems that other parts of the country are facing," Echols said.

Limited role

Despite the growth of the commissioners association and a structure that is better suited for conferences, Olson said Division II commissioners are properly limited in the role they play.

"Commissioners have become known as power brokers," Olson said. "But that's not the way it was when the association was formed, nor was it our motivation. We wanted to share ideas, concepts and deal with issues as they arose.

"I've always thought of commissioners as servants of their constituents. I think maybe some nowadays think of themselves differently, maybe more like Division I. But Division II will never have enough money for power brokers."

Other commissioners also see themselves in a role that has more to do with service than command.

"The commissioners are not in charge," Echols said. "But they hold a unique feel for the consensus of the schools they represent and work for."

McFillen agrees, saying that the division benefits from the multiple perspectives that the structure provides.

"I wouldn't want to see the commissioners running Division II any more than I would like to see any other group running it," he said. "I like the structure of Division II. It seems to be working well for us."

As for what is next, Echols said that the principal task at hand is establishing the division's course for the future.

"In a lot of ways," he said, "Division II is still trying to define itself. We have a unique role in the entire Association. It's a big challenge, but I think that the strategic planning process that is under way will help us accomplish that.

"There are many opportunities for Division II now. So many times in the past, issues were lumped together and we were in the shadow of Division I. Now, with the federated model, we're out from underneath it.

"But we accept that responsibility, and we will meet the challenge."