National Collegiate Athletic Association

The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- April 26, 1999

Division II Management Council addresses racially sensitive issues

BY DAVID PICKLE
STAFF WRITER

NEWPORT BEACH, California -- Although "race" did not specifically appear on the agenda of the Division II Management Council, the subject was a constant background theme during the April 12-13 spring meeting.

Three major issues involved assuring that Division II policies are fair to minority populations and that the division is taking active steps to increase diversity.

Although no closure was reached on any of the matters, the Management Council did emerge with positions for examining Division II initial-eligibility standards, establishing a matching-grant program to encourage the development of minority administrators and determining a method to help achieve diversity on the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

Initial eligibility

The Management Council heard a report from Kevin C.

II Management CouncilLennon, NCAA vice-president for membership services, in which he reviewed Division I initial-eligibility discussions that have occurred in the wake of the Cureton v. NCAA decision that struck down the existing Division I standard. A federal judge ruled that Proposition 16 has a illegal disparate impact on African-Americans.

Although the Division I Board of Directors naturally has focused on appropriate standards for Division I, it has considered its relationship with Division II since the divisions are linked through their use of the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse. In that regard, there was some discussion among the Division I Board of Directors that Division II consider creating standards that are the same as Division I's or modifying its standards so that they at least have certain major components in common with those in Division I (for example, the same number of core courses should Division I change its requirement).

In brief, the Management Council referred the matter to the Division II Academic Requirements Committee as part of its continuing review of initial-eligibility standards. However, it did forward to the Division II Presidents Council three recommendations that it believes would achieve a more effective process for addressing the issue.

First, it recommended that two additional chief executive officers from the Presidents Council be involved in the Division II Academic Requirements Committee's initial-eligibility discussions. The ARC includes one president who serves in a non-voting capacity, but the Management Council believes that this issue is sufficiently important that more extensive presidential involvement is needed up front.

Second, it recommended that a Division II Academic Requirements Committee representative be included in Division I initial-eligibility deliberations in the hope that such involvement would enhance communication and understanding for Division II governing bodies.

Finally, it requested support from the NCAA research staff in compiling more initial-eligibility analysis specific to Division II. Although abundant Division II data are available from the Clearinghouse, almost all analysis to date has focused on Division I.

The Management Council expressed little or no enthusiasm for having Division II initial-eligibility standards (which currently do not involve the use of a sliding scale matching grade-point averages and test scores) mirror the current Division I standards.

Lennon told the group that he expects Division I to have a recommendation for modified standards in place by June at the earliest and October at the latest. He noted that the legislative processes for the divisions differ, which means that changes could be made at different times.

The Division II Academic Requirements Committee will issue a follow-up report at the Management Council's July meeting.

Diversity grant

The main matter coming from the Division II Project Team to Review Issues Related to Diversity involved implementation of a matching-funds pilot program that would be used to develop minority administrators in Division II.

Although the Management Council unanimously supported the development of the pilot program, the division's leadership still must resolve how much funding the program will receive and how that funding will be administered over multiple years.

The project team envisions the grant program (officially known as the Division II Strategic Alliance Matching Grant Enhancement) as a strategic alliance between the NCAA and its member institutions to provide monetary grants for institutions and conferences "that endeavor to promote ethnic and gender diversity." The NCAA would approve the grants based on established guidelines and would fund them over three years at 75 percent for the first year, 50 percent for the second year and 25 percent for the third year. For the most part, it is envisioned that the funds would be used to pay salaries to minority administrators or coaches.

Although the Division II Budget/Finance Committee approved a preliminary 1999-00 budget that includes $250,000 in funding for the program, the budget committee did not assure continued funding for future years.

Ultimately, the Management Council referred the matter back to the Budget/Finance Committee and the diversity project team. Questions that need to be addressed are:

How much funding is appropriate? Originally, the diversity project team recommended $500,000 in funding over each of three years. It modified its proposal to $250,000 over three years (with follow-up funding in years 4 and 5 to supplement grants that were provided in years 2 and 3). A strict three-year program, however, would call for funding of $250,000 in the first year, $162,500 in the second year and $81,250 in the third, with no commitment in years 4 and 5.

Over what period of time should the commitment be made? If the Budget/Finance Committee is willing to commit only to a one-time expenditure of $250,000, the program could be established on a smaller scale, spreading the matching funds over three years with an initial outlay of $125,000. However, the question becomes: What is the minimal level at which the program can be effective? Even first-year funding of $250,000 would yield only 13.3 $25,000 grants. Division II currently has 267 member institutions and 20 voting conferences.

How can it be assured that the grant recipients will benefit Division II? The Management Council is concerned that grant recipients would receive benefits from the program but would not remain in Division II after their professional appeal has been enhanced.

To that end, it suggested that the project team explore whether some sort of commitment to Division II be required on the part of grant recipients.

When should the program be implemented? Although the project team believes the program should be a Division II priority, there are concerns that it may be too late to implement it for the 1999-00 fiscal year. Acquiring an adequate applicant pool could be a problem; another, perhaps larger, barrier is that institutions and conferences would not have an opportunity to develop their own budgets with the understanding that the matching funds would be available.

In either case, the Management Council was concerned that bad results could compromise the future of the program.

Therefore, it asked the project team to explore whether it may be advisable to implement the program in 2000-01.

SAAC representation

The other major item with racial implications involved how best to acquire diverse representation on the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

That committee has noted difficulty in acquiring minority involvement and in gaining members from a broad spectrum of sports. The greater issue involves minority representation.

With that in mind, the SAAC proposed that when a vacancy on the committee occurs, the applicable conference would be required to nominate four student-athletes, two men and two women. In addition, at least one man and one woman would be required to be ethnic minorities.

The Management Council applauded the SAAC's effort to diversify committee representation, but it defeated the proposal. In particular, it expressed concern that the policy would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce since some conferences might not have racially diverse candidate pools.

In that same vein, concern was expressed that a candidate field that was 50 percent minority would not necessarily reflect the ethnic makeup of a conference.

The response from SAAC was that the proposal was directed only at diversifying the candidate field and not at mandating quotas for the makeup of the committee.

The Management Council chose to defeat the proposal rather than refer it back to the SAAC.

It did, however, agree to place the broader topic of diversity in Division II on the agenda for the Division II Student-Athlete Summit, which will be conducted in July.

A report of the April Division II Presidents Council meeting will appear in the May 10 issue of The NCAA News.

Other highlights

Division II Management Council
April 12-13/Newport Beach, California

Supported a recommendation for legislation that would create an additional position on the Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports for a drug-education representative.

Received January-June 1998 drug-testing results from the competitive-safeguards committee and noted two positive cocaine tests.

Reviewed a set of cost-saving options suggested by the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse Committee. The Management Council supported options that have incremental cost increases incurred by students, that rely on increased use of technology and that provide for certification after the junior year for students who clearly will qualify.

Approved funding the following new Division II initiatives for 1999-00: Increasing officials' fees for nine sports ($6,140); increasing per diem for championships to $65 per day ($144,000); expanding the Division II Men's and Women's Track and Field Committee by two people, primarily to help with championships administration in cross country, indoor track and outdoor track ($12,250); and a matching grant pilot program to enhance diversity in Division II ($250,000, see story, page 1).

Approved creation of a $50,000 contingency line in the 1999-00 budget to deal with unanticipated budget requests that occur outside the normal budget cycle. Use of the fund would be limited to $10,000 per occurrence.

Approved increasing the ground transportation requirement for Division II championships from 400 to 500 miles. When air travel is involved, ground transportation would be required if the nearest major airport is within 150 miles of the point of origin or the destination.

Approved the Bylaws 11 and 13 deregulation package that will be considered at the 1999 Convention, with two exceptions. The Management Council wants reaction from the membership and from the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee regarding a proposal that would eliminate the "one-phone-call-per-week" restriction in all Division II sports. The Management Council also asked the Legislation Committee to further review an amendment that would eliminate the prohibition against hand-delivering National Letters of Intent.

Approved three of five interpretations submitted by the Interpretations Subcommittee of the Legislation Committee. The approved interpretations related to advertising by a professional sports organization, use of prepaid envelopes, and student-athletes receiving pregame and postgame meals or snacks on competition day.

Asked the Championships Committee to revisit the championships memento issue, noting that Division III had taken action in this area. Specifically, the Management Council asked the Championships Committee to consider developing consistency of mementos within sports and among divisions.

Approved a motion supporting a greater effort on the part of the NCAA to identify and use women and minority vendors.

Recommended the following priorities for Association-wide budget requests (in priority order): a sports-wagering video, a video produced by the Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee regarding the realities of careers in professional sports, development of a code of conduct poster recommended by the Committee on Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct, enhancing male participation in nontraditional sports in the Youth Education through Sports program, and initiatives to enhance the role of ethnic minority females in athletics.

Noted that the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee continues to be concerned about abuses of the 20-hour a week rule and about access to athletic trainers, especially in nonrevenue sports.

Agreed that Division II committees seeking to meet in-person more than twice annually should be required to gain prior approval from the Division II Management Council.

Appointed a project team to examine committee travel issues in Division II. Project team members are G. Jean Cerra, Barry University; David W. Coffey, Northwood University; Carol M. Dunn, California State University, Los Angeles; and Michael J. Marcil, North Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference.