The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- September 13, 1999

Deregulation crossroads

Division II delegates set to take first step in five-year legislative plan

BY DAVID PICKLE
STAFF WRITER

When Division II meets at the NCAA Convention in January, it will find itself at a philosophical intersection.

At that time, it can choose to stay on the familiar road or it can turn down a different path that involves less legislative regulation.

Indeed, the most important collective matter before Division II at the Convention will be the first step in its five-year legislative deregulation journey.

A total of 11 legislative proposals relating to Bylaws 11 (personnel) and 13 (recruiting) will be considered. By the time adjournment occurs January 10, delegates likely will have revealed something about the degree to which they are willing to modify the 416-page Division II Manual.

The basic objective of deregulation is clear enough: production of a smaller Manual that is easier to use. But the larger goal is to adjust the rules so that they truly reflect Division II's philosophy.

Since the NCAA restructured two years ago, a sentiment has existed within the division to clarify its identity. Specifically, many in Division II feel a need to strip out extraneous rules that were adopted along with Division I legislation in the previous structure.

Legislation with Division I roots is found throughout the Division II Manual. For example, there is a list detailing what 13 different types of printed materials are allowed for recruiting in Division II, even though it seems unlikely that many Division II institutions have the resources or the will to spend their way to recruiting success through print.

Concerns

If such regulation is excessive for Division II and deregulation can eliminate it, what is the concern?

Lynn Dorn, past chair of the Division II Management Council and director of women's athletics at North Dakota State University, cautioned that the process is a subjective one.

What might seem to be bureaucratic excess to one institution might be a necessary control for another.

"I think deregulation is a very healthy process and a much needed one," she said, "but we must be very prudent in how we go about it. We need to make sure that we don't deregulate to a level that is counterproductive."

Another concern could involve a traditional NCAA bugaboo -- fear that a rival is gaining a competitive advantage.

In that regard, the effort to deregulate may be -- to some extent -- a test of how institutions weigh their own interests vs. the interests of the division as a whole.

"When we're talking about deregulation for the entire division, we've got to put on our division hats instead of our institutional hats and think about what is in the best interests of intercollegiate athletics in the long run," said Jessica Kozloff, president of Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania.

"We can always find reasons to fear that one of our competitors is going to take advantage of either deregulating a rule or not deregulating it. I hope we're at the point now where we're going to put the interests of the entire division and the interests of student-athletes at the forefront.

"We have to in some ways trust each other that we are going to abide by the spirit of Division II's mission statement. And if we can't do that, we're never going to progress as a division."

Even so, Kozloff -- a Presidents Council member who has worked with the Legislation Committee on deregulation -- said that the Convention need not approve all 11 deregulation proposals for the process to be considered successful.

"There's no reason this all has to be done in one fell swoop," she said. "I think the whole purpose of the Convention and whole philosophy behind Division II's structure is that we want to hear from the membership, how they feel about this.

"The task at hand is to put these proposals out for examination. We're proposing them. But we don't say that we have a Convention and invite people to vote and not mean it. I think we're going to say it's successful regardless of whether three proposals, six proposals or 11 proposals pass."

Legislation Committee Chair Paul H. Engelmann, faculty athletics representative at Central Missouri State University, agrees that a complete buy-in is not necessary.

"If you pass 50 percent of the proposals, at least you have eliminated that much legislation that might not be needed for the efficient operation of Division II," he said.

Deregulation summits

The Legislation Committee has been creative in its approach to establish a division-wide dialogue on deregulation.

Rather than simply deliberating on its own, the committee developed a series of "deregulation summits," the first of which was conducted in July 1998 and focused on Bylaws 11 and 13. The July 1999 summit pointed toward Bylaw 15 (financial aid), which will be considered at the 2001 Convention. Other summits will be conducted in 2000, 2001 and 2002, with resulting legislation being considered in 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Engelmann said the concept of the summit was born out of a desire to make the deregulation examination as complete as possible.

"We had gone through Bylaws 11 and 13 and at least identified the issues we were concerned with," Engelmann said. "But nobody on the committee believes we have all the answers, and so we tried to identify a broad base of groups who would be able to contribute. That included coaches groups, especially on Bylaw 13."

Among them was Ron Harms, football coach at Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

"They were very responsive," Harms said of the Legislation Committee. "It really wasn't a session where there was a great deal of debate. It was simply, 'Hey, lay your ideas out on the table.' ''

But Harms said there was no ready consensus on every issue.

"Even in Division II, you could tell there was a vast difference in what some people had to work with as compared to others," Harms said. "Even at the Division II level, there are differences in the amount of finances that are available to each school. And the less finances that were available, it appeared that they wanted fewer and fewer rules because they didn't think any of those rules had any pertinence to them."

Engelmann noted more differences among constituent groups (for example, coaches, faculty representatives, commissioners and athletics directors) than between large and small programs. "One group might see one piece of legislation being essential, and another group would warn of the consequences if you took it out," he said.

Dorn said that those differences are what make deregulation such a demanding process.

"There is such a variation among the membership," she said. "I know that there are those who believe that if a rule doesn't affect them but is labor intensive to monitor, then it's not a meaningful rule.

"But I don't believe that is necessarily true. There may be a number of unintended consequences if we move too fast."

Kozloff says that if the Convention chooses a cautious approach on deregulation, then so be it; the one-school, one-vote principle remains at the heart of Division II decision-making.

However, Kozloff also believes that chief executive officers need to weigh in on this matter, given its importance. Last year, only about 30 percent of Division II institutions had CEO representation at the Convention.

"Presidents can put on that 'division hat' and think about what is really in the best interests of intercollegiate athletics and Division II," she said. "That's why we're going to presidential leadership and involvement in our governance structure.

"If there's one thing we need to ask our presidents to do, it's to take this long view and this division-wide view about what is in the best interests of our student-athletes and the kind of program we want to offer students in Division II."

Deregulation proposals

Division II deregulation proposals that will be considered at the 2000 Convention:

Bylaw 11