Division II, the smallest of the three NCAA divisions since the current structure was put in place in 1972, has begun an aggressive examination of how to manage potentially explosive -- and perhaps harmful -- membership growth.

To deal with the matter, the Division II Membership Committee has recommended a two-year moratorium on new membership, either from outside the NCAA or from within.

The committee also is recommending appointment of a project team that would evaluate the amount of growth Division II can expect, recommend appropriate changes for Division II membership requirements and generally plan for future membership expansion.

Both the proposed moratorium and the project team would have to be approved by the Division II Management Council and Presidents Council through the adoption of noncontroversial legislation in April. In addition, since a membership moratorium would be considered an Association-wide issue, it is likely that Divisions I and III would need to approve similar legislation.

NAIA, Division III factors

Up until now, Division II growth has been steady, mirroring that of the NCAA in general.

Since multidivision membership numbers stabilized in 1973-74, the Division II membership never has exceeded 27.2 percent of the whole nor has it fallen below 22.9 percent.

But times may be changing because of two forces that are beyond Division II's control.

The first involves continuing migration from institutions previously affiliated with the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. NAIA membership has declined from about 550 in the mid-1970s to 331 today. It has been challenge enough for Division II to deal with NAIA attrition to this point, but the bigger concern is that the trend is continuing and maybe even accelerating. Through February, the Division II Membership Committee had more than 30 requests to apply for provisional membership. Applications are not accepted until mid-April and not due until June, which suggests that even more membership inquiries for 2000-01 may yet be made.

The second factor relates to a change that was approved by Division III at the 1997 NCAA Convention.

At that time, Division III delegates voted to increase their sports-sponsorship requirements to five men's sports and five women's sports (up from four), effective with the 2001-02 academic year.

According to 1998-99 sports sponsorship reports, 58 Division III members (28 provisional and 30 active) have not met the new requirement. A number of those institutions may be interested in joining Division II (where the sponsorship requirement remains at four men's and four women's sports) rather than complying with the new Division III legislation.

On top of those factors is the fact that Division II currently contains 35 provisional members, which means that total membership is projected to stand at 297 active institutions by September 1, 2003 -- a 21 percent increase since the inception of provisional membership in 1994. To put that in perspective, the division has increased by only 34 percent since it was established 28 years ago.

Mix the current provisionals with the NAIA institutions and the possible transfers from Division III, and the potential for rapid growth becomes apparent.

Division II appeal

What is making Division II membership so attractive?

"I think Division II is appealing because we don't have the financial aid requirements of Division I," said Kaye P. Crook, faculty athletics representative at Coker College and a Management Council representative on the Membership Committee. "Likewise, schools can offer athletically related aid in Division II, which they can't do in Division III. In one division you must and in one you can't. So we're kind of a catch-all, for lack of a better word."

Crook also said many NAIA schools simply have more in common with Division II institutions than with those in Divisions I or III. Most NAIA schools have small enrollments and tend to fit a Division II profile in terms of budget, personnel and facilities.

All of this produces a good news/bad news state of mind in Division II. It is hard for administrators to be upset that similar institutions want to align themselves with their division. However, if the growth is not managed properly, Division II membership may not be as appealing in the future as it is now.

From the Membership Committee viewpoint, the key growth-management issue is ensuring Division II compliance through the current four-year education process for new provisional members.

"The Membership Committee has heard responses from provisional members that our current four-year program is successful," said Penny Clayton, faculty athletics representative at Drury University and Membership Committee chair. "I know we don't want to go back to the days when somebody just handed you the Manual and told you to figure it out."

But Crook said she believes the educational assessment program was designed to accommodate only about 12 to 15 new provisional member institutions in any given year and about 50 in the four-year program at any one time. There simply is not enough staff or membership support available to deal with 50 new applicants in a given year.

As important as the educational assessment is, the existing membership likely is more concerned with how current programs for Division II active members would be affected by escalating growth.

Championships

The issue on most minds is championships and how an expanding membership would pressure a structure that currently is going through significant bracket and field-size change. Those changes have been made to accommodate access issues for the existing Division II membership, and rapid growth has not been factored in to those changes.

"I know the Championships Committee tried to structure the brackets thoughtfully," Crook said. "But never could they have thought of dealing with 50 to 60 new members in a year."

The governance restructuring that was implemented in 1997 entitles Division II to at least 4.37 percent of the Association's annual general operating revenue. The percentages were determined by looking at each division's championship expenses in 1995 and calculating those expenses as a percentage of the total NCAA budget. So, in essence, the allocation was based on an assumption that the future Division II would resemble the current Division II.

Although an agreement was reached before restructuring that would permit the NCAA Executive Committee to consider increasing the allocation if rapid membership growth were to occur, such an increase would be done at the discretion of the Executive Committee.

To this point, 4.37 percent ($12.75 million in 1999-00) has been an adequate figure. The division in fact has been building unallocated funds since it became financially autonomous two years ago. But the growth of the unallocated funds has been by design to address current membership issues (championships-related expenses, including travel and the elimination of its geographic-proximity policy) and not to address significant growth.

Apart from championships, the new Division II strategic plan contains a host of other new initiatives that are tied to the size of the current Division II membership. Staff support for various initiatives has been measured assuming the division would contain about 300 schools, not 350 to 400.

"We have to make sure we have our bases covered for our current members before we open it up for everybody to come in," said Dave Brunk, commissioner of the Northeast-10 Conference and a member of the Membership Committee.

So, what does that involve?

Discussion points

At its February 3-4 meeting, the Membership Committee recommended the two-year moratorium on all new members and creation of a project team to study Division II membership growth issues.

"We approached this idea of a moratorium with a great deal of caution," said Clayton. "We only recently completed a membership moratorium (concurrent with restructuring in the mid-'90s), and it was not our No. 1 choice. But we didn't anticipate this much possible growth."

The moratorium would give would-be NCAA schools time to make an informed decision about which athletics organization might best fit their needs.

However, the much bigger purpose behind the moratorium would be to give the project team time to make dec isions about how Division II membership growth should be managed.

Ideas abound on this matter. Among the many possibilities are:

* Requiring provisional members to be rules compliant in certain areas (for instance, sports sponsorship) in year one.

* Requiring that institutions applying for provisional membership be evaluated through on-campus visits.

* Limiting the number of new provisional members in any one year.

* Changing the sports-sponsorship requirement in Division II.

* Changing the requirements that must be met to be an active Division II conference.

* Establishing a reclassification membership education program in Division II.

But one major focus likely will fall on what commitments a Division II institution is expected to make regarding athletically related aid.

The Division II Philosophy Statement (Bylaw 20.10) says that a Division II member "believes in offering opportunity for participation in intercollegiate athletics by permitting athletically related financial aid for its student-athletes." However, no institution is actually required to provide athletically related aid.

Mike L. Racy, Division II chief of staff, said he believes that almost every Division II member now provides some degree of aid, which would set them apart from the Division III institutions that may be contemplating Division II membership.