On the morning of January 8, 1996, Division II delegates to the 90th Annual NCAA Convention gathered in a Dallas hotel ballroom to consider, among other things, a proposal to create a Division II athletics certification program.

The Division II members of the powerful NCAA Presidents Commission backed Proposal No. 16, which would have mandated an institutional self-study validated by peer reviewers. The proposal was tac-

itly endorsed by the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, which five years earlier had made athletics certification a linchpin of its widely accepted "one-plus-three" reform model.

Not only did the proposal have those factors in its favor, supporters had precedent on their side since Division I was busy implementing its own version of athletics certification.

Athletics administrators were known to have misgivings about the expense and time that the program would require, but it seemed almost certain that the reform-minded NCAA membership of the day eventually would approve Division II athletics certification -- if not at the 1996 Convention, then at the next.

Instead, Proposal No. 16 went down and stayed down in a flood of rhetoric, failing to receive even 30 percent of the votes cast. When the final tally was made, the proposal was defeated by the astonishing count of 73-176-3, unheard of for NCAA Council-sponsored legislation.

Now, almost five years later, the 1996 athletics certification vote arguably stands as the moment that the modern Division II was born. The action was nothing short of a declaration of independence on the part of Division II administrators. For them, the time had arrived to stop living in the shadow of Division I.

"Division II now has the opportunity to legislate for itself and to make its own way in athletics," Robert E. Hartwell, athletics director at Adelphi University, said during Convention debate. "I really feel that Division II is an entity unto itself."

"This is not Division I," said Richard Wettan of Queens College (New York). "It's time for us to reverse this 'me-too-ism' where we have to do everything that Division I has done."

"Division II does not share the problems and burdens of Division I," said Samuel H. Rankin of Chadron State College.

While the certification vote was a landmark moment for administrators, it was no less significant for Division II chief executive officers because it jolted them into a reality: They could not create reform in the division simply by endorsing change. Instead, they would have to be involved in a way that they never had before.

Throughout the 1996 Convention and on into the next, Division II joined the rest of the Association in overwhelmingly ratifying a new governance structure. But for Division II, the certification vote indicated that restructuring was merely the means to an end rather than an objective in itself. From that point forward, Division II's focus was on separating itself from Division I and on making certain that Division II presidents were involved in governance decisions in the most effective way possible.

Division I separation

For most of the last 30 years, Division II has been defined by default. The conventional wisdom was that it wasn't Division I, which featured programs with more resources competing at a higher level, and it wasn't Division III, which granted no athletically related financial aid. The image of Division II was simply that which remained, institutions that aspired to a higher level but that weren't there yet.

But at least within Division II, that perception has changed over the last three years, and membership restructuring gets credit from those on the front lines.

"We're not perceived anymore as a division of wannabes," said Clint Bryant, athletics director at Augusta State University and chair of the Division II Management Council. "People used to think Division II was there because there was nowhere else to be, but due to restructuring, where we are is pretty good."

Former Presidents Council Chair Arend D. Lubbers, president of Grand Valley State University, shares Bryant's belief that Division II's days as a mere way station may be coming to an end.

"This is my guess," he said. "Those who looked at Division II as a holding tank until they became Division I, most of them have moved, and I don't think we'll be seeing quite so many doing so in the future.

"At my institution, we have almost 19,000 students, which certainly is big enough for Division I. But why would we want to do that when we would have to compete with Michigan and Michigan State and other Division I universities in the state? It doesn't make any sense to compete in that league when we would triple our budget and still lose more money. And I know there are presidents in Division II who share my beliefs."

While Division II affiliation may make increasing sense for financial reasons alone, it also could be more attractive nowadays because of legislative and programmatic changes made since restructuring was completed in 1997. Among those enhancements are:

Major championships bracket expansion.

Deregulation of Bylaws 11 and 13, with plans to deregulate Bylaws 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 over the next four years.

Creation of the Division II Strategic Alliance Matching Grant Enhancement Program, which may serve as an Association-wide model for jump-starting diversity hiring in athletics administration.

An enhanced compliance review process.

Development of a comprehensive legislative package, to be considered at the 2001 Convention, to make amateurism legislation fairer for Division II student-athletes.

Plans to strengthen Division II conferences so that they may help administer programs developed through the division's strategic plan.

No one can truly say that those enhancements would not have occurred under the previous structure, but the new structure did provide Division II with the autonomy it needed to redefine itself.

"One problem historically in the old structure was that Divisions II and III issues got lost with Division I material," said Anthony F. Ceddia, president of Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania and a former member of the Division II Presidents Council. "And then Division I got caught up with Divisions II and III when it wanted to make changes. So restructuring has helped in that regard."

Making change

Restructuring involved two parts. The first was the federation of the overall Association, and the second was creating a governance structure within each of the three membership divisions.

For Division II, the latter part was not that big a deal since it chose a structure that was similar to the way it previously did business. The Division II Management Council resembled the old Division II Steering Committee, the Division II Presidents Council looked a lot like the old Presidents Commission and -- perhaps most importantly -- the division maintained a one-institution, one-vote philosophy for adopting legislation.

Given the independence from Division I and a familiar and time-proven apparatus for implementing legislation, Division II has been a virtual machine for creating change over the last three years.

Perhaps the best example involves legislative deregulation. Almost immediately after restructuring was adopted, the division set about deregulating the Division II Manual. At the 2000 Convention, proposals to deregulate Bylaws 11 and 13 sailed through with literally no resistance. The deregulation of Bylaw 15 in January may not go quite as smoothly, but the commitment to purge the Division II Manual of unnecessary legislation is strong and unwavering.

"For so long," Bryant said, "we just piggybacked on so many Division I issues. That's why we're finding deregulation so easy to walk our way through. We can step out on some new ground with amateurism and things like that."

Ralph W. McFillen, commissioner of the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association, also said the new system has helped produce more streamlined legislation.

"Previously, people were voting on Division I issues," he said. "Most of our deregulation now focuses on a lot of rules that were Division I carry-overs from the old days. Now we're finding out that those rules are not as important to us in our structure today.

"We're aware of the issues that are occurring in the other divisions through the (NCAA) News and other sources, but maybe we don't understand as much because we're not in the room hearing the pros and cons. But since it doesn't impact Division II, it's not as big an issue."

The down side

That focus-on-your-own-division element is probably the biggest attribute offered by federation, but it also points toward what some believe to be its greatest liability: The NCAA, very much an Association of all colleges and universities for most of its first century, now is much more a loose grouping of three membership divisions.

In that regard, Lynn Dorn, director of women's athletics at North Dakota State University and former chair of the Management Council, does not like what she sees, even going so far as to believe that the Association has managed to reverse its priorities.

"I think perhaps we have gone too far the other way, that the individual divisions have become more important than the overall Association," she said. "I strongly believe we need to conduct an assessment of whether membership restructuring is meeting the needs of the Association."

Of course, in the federated world, the Division I star shines most brightly, often casting a shadow over the other divisions. For example, Division II Convention delegates have been concerned that recent State of the Association speeches have focused on Division I issues even though the audience in the Convention ballroom consisted overwhelmingly of Divisions II and III representatives.

At the Division II business session of the 2000 Convention, Bryant -- the primary architect of the diversity grant program -- clearly felt that the accomplishments of the division had been overlooked after NCAA President Cedric W. Dempsey chided the overall Association for failing to take action to improve minority hiring.

"I would like for the president to know that the train has already left the station in Division II," Bryant said in a speech to Division II delegates. "We stand here as living proof of what can be done in this Association if you are truly committed to the vision. We stand here today not as passengers waiting to board or sitting comfortably on this train.

"I would suggest, Mr. President, that Division II stands here today as architects of the rail line, that Division II is the engineer of the system, that Division II is driving the train. We may not be providing the resources, but it is apparent that we are providing the leadership."

Division I's primacy also is a factor in an ongoing health-care issue that affects Division II. Many Division II administrators -- from athletics directors to presidents -- are concerned about how their institutions will be affected over the next several years by potentially costly changes involving student athletic trainers and athletic training requirements in general. Because Division I-A institutions can more easily afford to hire staff who can mitigate the concerns, a number of individuals within Division II believe that the Division I-A-dominated Executive Committee has not prioritized the matter as a serious Association-wide problem.

Division II at the forefront

Those concerns aside, the mood in Division II is generally upbeat. In particular, the membership is proud of the creative ways in which the division has tackled difficult issues.

One example involves student-athlete representation. Many outside observers did a double-take during restructuring when Division II linked its Student-Athlete Advisory Committee with the Management Council through an annual, legislatively mandated summit meeting. Although both the athletes and the administrators struggled with the concept at the beginning, the summit has evolved into what may be a prototype for student-athlete involvement throughout the membership.

Another example involves amateurism. The division -- weary of growing domination by competitively experienced international student-athletes in certain sports, along with a sense that the current Bylaw 12 does not reflect modern realities -- has developed legislation that, if approved at the January Convention, will put Division II at the forefront of one of the most fundamental philosophical changes in NCAA history.

"Amateurism is a prime example of where the new structure has helped," said Jerry Hughes, athletics director at Central Missouri State University and a member of the Division II Management Council. "It appears to have a decent chance of passing, but under the old system it wouldn't have."

In developing the amateurism legislation, the division used a project team composed of both presidents and athletics administrators, chaired by Allen Sessoms, former president of Queens College (New York). That shared approach to governance has worked so well that it is now becoming the favored model for important decision-making within Division II. The Budget and Finance Committee is chaired by Bernard Franklin, president of Virginia Union University, but of the eight other members of the committee, four are athletics administrators. Dorn chairs a critically important project team to study membership-requirement issues; her committee contains three presidents, seven other administrators and a student-athlete.

Perhaps as a result of this inclusive approach, there seems to be a growing comfort within Division II for the role presidents are playing.

"The presidents on the Presidents Council are in tune with the issues," Hughes said. "I know it takes a special effort for them because there are so many things on their plate. Others of us, like athletics directors, faculty reps and senior woman administrators, live and breathe athletics.

"Sometimes the presidents have to work to get up to speed, but in truth, there are not that many issues where the presidents and Management Council have been that far apart. And those issues have been worked out."

CEO role

One administrator who asked not to be identified said that Division II presidents in fact have greater knowledge about their athletics programs than their Division I peers because the Division II programs are financed with institutional funds. "That's not true with all of them," the administrator said, "but as a rule, at this level, when you're putting in $1 million or more, you're very knowledgeable about how the money is being used."

Lubbers, long an advocate of presidential control, said that one part of the structure is not what it needs to be: The presidents still are not effectively networked.

"That is the objective that we on the Presidents Council have," he said. "By strengthening the conferences as we have proposed, I would hope that that would enhance the presidential network. I don't think the network has reached the effectiveness that it should or can, but that's something we should work toward."

Although the membership may be increasingly understanding of the CEO role in governance, the road to presidential authority has not been bump-free.

At the 1999 Convention in San Antonio, the Presidents Council avoided a complicated Convention-floor action on the division's geographic-proximity policy at the last minute by using its authority to amend Bylaw 31 on its own. However well-intentioned the decision may have been, the action displeased administrators who thought that the financial ramifications of the change had not been adequately explored.

At the 2000 Convention in San Diego, the presidents inadvertently prevented consideration of a proposal on student-athlete skill instruction. The Presidents Council had agreed to sponsor a proposal on skill-instruction legislation for the 2000 Convention, prompting sponsors of similar legislation from the membership to withdraw their proposal. However, after the July 15 deadline for the submission of proposed legislation, the presidents heeded the concerns of the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and pulled the proposal from the legislative docket. The result, to the consternation of the membership sponsors, was that the proposal could not be considered at the Convention.

In fact, the presidents never intended to preclude a vote on the issue simply because the student-athletes objected, and the same membership-sponsored proposal on skill instruction will be considered at 2001 Convention. And, to illustrate that they are acting in good faith, the presidents faced a nearly identical issue this year with recruiting legislation involving telephone calls; this time, they will permit the legislation to be considered even though they no longer support it.

The bottom line: Even though the system sometimes has to improve through trial-and-error, it appears to be successfully evolving thanks to a cooperative effort from all of the parties who make up Division II.

"Restructuring has provided two very important ingredients of governance," said Longwood College President Patricia P. Cormier, who will chair the Presidents Council starting in January. "First, we have a strong representative body that makes critical decisions, that really looks at the various facets of how Division II operates. That strong representation puts responsibility for what happens in the hands of the presidents, who are wisely informed by other bodies, the most important of which is the Management Council.

"Second, we still have an assembly. I think having that strong representation and widespread membership input create the ideal structure. It's more like a republic, in some ways like two branches of government."

As with any form of governance, the system is not perfect. But the system is one that Division II can call its own and use to its greatest advantage. After the pluses and minuses are considered, that greater independence appears to have made membership restructuring a winner for Division II.

Coming in the October 23 issue of The NCAA News: A review of the Division III governance structure.