Amateurism deregulation stands on the doorstep of approval in Division II, and the Division II Presidents Council wants to make certain that the legislation takes that all-important final step.

At its November 1 meeting in Indianapolis, the Presidents Council discussed ways in which it can help assure passage of legislation that supporters believe would benefit student-athlete welfare and enhance competitive equity within Division II.

The Presidents Council has been encouraged about membership support for the package, but it is concerned about a letter-writing campaign directed from high-school interests to at least some Division II chief executive officers and athletics directors. The letters ask Division II representatives not to support what the high-school interests claim to be "pay-for-play" provisions of the legislation.

"I hope Division II administrators will not be unduly influenced by these letters," said Jerry E. McGee, president of Wingate University and Presidents Council member.

"First, the proposed legislation prescribes no changes for enrolled student-athletes. In fact, the proposed legislation is wholly consistent with our Principle of Amateurism (Constitution 2.9), which says that student participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation."

McGee, a member of the Division II Amateurism Project Team, emphasized that the high-school community is free to enact its own amateurism legislation, rather than relying on NCAA legislation to create high-school amateurism standards by default.

"That is exactly what is happening at the moment," McGee said. "Our current rules state that once an athlete has demonstrated an intent to professionalize, then that individual is permanently ineligible. Not only has that approach proved almost impossible for Division II to administer, it has left segments of the high-school community in a position of not having to worry about creating their own amateurism standards. In fact, I believe if high schools feel strongly about pay-for-play issues, then they should adopt and enforce them at their level."

McGee noted that high schools sought and were granted greater autonomy when the Association wrestled with certifying initial eligibility during the early days of the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse.

"The high schools were quite persuasive that the NCAA should not be involved in dictating policy to high schools on a national basis, and we adjusted our own practices accordingly to accommodate their concerns," McGee said. "But I don't believe you can pick and choose how you want to apply this sort of autonomy, and if a one-size-fits-all approach was inappropriate for core courses, then I submit that it also is inappropriate for amateurism."

Gladys Styles Johnston, chancellor at the University of Nebraska at Kearney and chair of the Division II Presidents Council, noted that Division II chief executive officers and presidents soon will be receiving a letter from NCAA President Cedric W. Dempsey in which he will address the concerns noted in the letter-writing campaign. Johnston also said that athletics directors at all Division II institutions should by now have received copies of a video explaining the amateurism deregulation package and how it benefits the Division II membership.

"The Presidents Council wants to make certain that every Division II institution casts an informed vote on this extremely important issue," Johnston said. "To help with the education process, staff will be available for presentations to conference meetings that will occur at the Convention."

The amateurism deregulation package will be considered during the January 8 general business session.

Other business

In other business, the Presidents Council endorsed the Division II long-range financial plan that had been supported by the Management Council at its October meeting. The action means that Division II delegates to the 2001 NCAA Convention in Orlando will have an opportunity to react to the budget plan during the Convention's general business session.

The long-range financial plan is tied closely to the Division II strategic plan in that it assigns financial allocations to strategic initiatives that have been identified for the division for the next five years. While the financial commitments represent only a best estimate of what the various programs might cost, the financial plan does provide the division with a starting point on how to discuss resource allocation.

Part of the plan routes the funds through conference offices so the money can be administered as effectively as possible on a local basis. The presidents joined the Management Council in expressing support for conference accountability for any funds received from the NCAA. The Presidents Council went a step further than the Management Council, however, and discussed what consequences might occur if NCAA funds were not used for the purpose for which they were intended.

Other highlights

Division II Presidents Council
November 1/Indianapolis

Agreed that Division II will not require event managers to provide indemnification and/or insurance to protect the NCAA from claims related to Division II exempted contests.