So it may be with the new Division II Compliance Blueprint program, which will make its long-awaited debut this year.

The program is in one way a descendent of a proposed Division II athletics certification program that was thoroughly defeated at the 1996 NCAA Convention. Although the certification proposal went down by a two-to-one margin, one important spark continued to flicker: Because the action predated the restructuring of the Association, Division II gained an assurance that the Association-wide funds that had been set aside for Division II certification could be made available for similar purposes in the future.

It took four years to refine the alternative, but the Compliance Blueprint may have been worth the wait.

First, the Compliance Blueprint should be understood for what it isn't -- an athletics certification program. The program is voluntary, at least as far as the NCAA is concerned, and it involves no peer review from other member institutions.

Instead, the program is what the name suggests: a way to help Division II institutions build a more effective compliance structure.

"This is a program designed to assist the school in drawing up blueprints for how it will administer its compliance program," said James R. Johnson, NCAA membership services representative II. "It's like building a house one room at a time. You address recruiting rules, make sure you're certifying eligibility correctly, and that you're administering financial aid correctly and within the rules. You draw up a blueprint for each component area and build this 'house' of rules compliance."

Although the financial support for the Compliance Blueprint program emerged from the ashes of athletics certification, its actual structure is much more closely tied with the old, and popular, compliance review program.

"We identified all of the things that the membership thought were positives in the old program and kept all those elements," said Mike Marcil, commissioner of the North Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and chair of the Compliance Blueprint project team. "Then we made it Division II-specific with regard to the legislation."

Voluntary, no-cost program

Marcil said that popular elements of the previous program include a self-study component; a thorough review of all rules-compliance areas; and an external and confidential review by the NCAA staff. The program is offered at no cost to the institution.

The program also has been designed to work in concert with the Institutional Self-Study Guide (ISSG), which Division II institutions are required to complete at least once every five years.

"In that regard," Marcil said, "the Compliance Blueprint program provides you an opportunity to do a more in-depth review of your compliance program. This way, when you're doing the more comprehensive ISSG, you already will be better prepared to complete the compliance section."

Johnson said the benefit also could work the other way: If an institution discovered compliance problems while completing its ISSG, then the chief executive officer and other key staff members might choose to

participate in the Compliance Blueprint program as the most effective way of addressing the problem.

Although the Compliance Blueprint pro

gram is voluntary at the national level, conferences may require their members to participate.

Such is already the case in the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association (MIAA), which provided one of the pilot participants for the program.

The MIAA previously required its members to do a compliance review on one year either side of their ISSGs. From now on, the MIAA will require its institutions to participate in the Compliance Blueprint program in a similar manner.

Pilot participant

That's completely acceptable to Missouri Western State College Athletics Director Pete Chapman, whose institution was one of two Compliance Blueprint pilot participants. Missouri Western was chosen because it happened to be at a point where it needed to perform another ISSG.

"It was a very good experience," Chapman said. "We regarded it as a 'friendly audit.' It was received very well, from the president all the way down."

The process included a broad collection of athletically related personnel, including administrators, coaches, individuals from the financial aid office and the registrar's office, the faculty athletics representative, the executive vice-president and the president.

"We were pleased with how it went," Chapman said. "It's a very good process that brings a lot of validity to what you're trying to do."

Or, to put it another way, the athletics program is certified, if only informally, as having initiated and completed an external review of its rules-compliance program.

Marcil said the NCAA may send a form to institutions, indicating that they have completed the Blueprint Program for a particular academic year. The institution then could be encouraged to update it each year so that it remains a current document.

Marcil said he also is exploring how (or whether) to publicize the institutions that have completed the program. "We might advise them that it is voluntary to disclose whether they have completed the program," he said, "but it seems like most participants wouldn't object to that."

Not only would they benefit from seemingly positive publicity, they also could serve as a resource for institutions that may be contemplating whether to participate.

For his part, Missouri Western's Chapman said he would be pleased for it to be known that his institution has completed the program.

"Even though this program is voluntary," Marcil said, "we hope that the Compliance Blueprint is so beneficial that every Division II institution will want to participate."