ORLANDO, Florida -- The review of membership requirements has pushed its way to the front as Division II's issue de jour.

With amateurism now having been acted upon with the approval of 2001 Convention Proposal No. 12, attention is turning quickly to the activities of the Division II Membership Review Project Team, which is charged with making certain that membership standards are appropriate for active and provisional members.

But while the divergence of views may seem daunting at the moment, the division has demonstrated a dogged determination in recent months for working through thorny issues and arriving at decisions with which most of the membership seems comfortable. Amateurism deregulation and changes in Division II's enhancement fund distribution both started with widely differing beliefs among many different factions, but widely accepted solutions eventually were reached on both issues.

The stimulus to do something about membership standards comes from a possible influx of new members from Division III and, once a membership moratorium is lifted, the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. If not properly managed, such rapid growth could affect provisional member education, championship opportunities and other membership resources. Still, the project team's review promises to be complicated since possible remedies affect so many important areas for the existing membership.

"This conversation leads me to think about the late '80s when Division I started adding new minimum spending requirements and scheduling requirements," said Steve Murray, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference. "We're starting to sound a little bit like Division I, and that is concerning to me. So I'd like to throw up a big yellow caution sign in front of this committee and say let's take this very carefully and make sure we're doing the best thing for our current members and then start thinking about the members that might come."

Jim Watson, athletics director at West Liberty State College and a member of the project team, responded that the division has been ambivalent about financial aid in recent years. Division II rules permit, but do not require, athletically related aid. Division I requires such aid, while Division III prohibits it.

"In the final analysis, the division voted to leave everything the same. We made no substantial changes in financial aid. In a follow-up survey, the interesting result was that they wanted us to continue to study the issue."

Diversity of programs

Barry Blizzard, commissioner of the West Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, asked the project team to adhere to Division II's heritage of diversity with regard to the scope of its athletics programs, but Nathan Salant, commissioner of the Gulf South Conference, warned that the division runs the risk of becoming so diverse that it loses its ability to function properly.

"And while I realize many schools do not have the sport, for those that do, this is a very, very crucial issue. I think the committee needs to keep a very careful eye on that because at some point, dollars and cents and numbers of student-athletes may come into loggerheads with each other.

"How diverse can Division II get before it starts to run into problems with itself? I don't know the answer to that. I can only bring to you the concern that an institution that only sponsors men's and women's soccer, men's and women's basketball, men's and women's tennis and men's and women's golf is very different from an institution that sponsors football, men's and women's soccer, men's and women's cross country, volleyball, men's and women's basketball, baseball, softball, etc."

South Atlantic Conference Commissioner Doug Echols agreed that the review has merit.

"Even though we are now federated, we don't exist in isolation, and what does happen in Division I and Division III and the NAIA continues to impact us as a membership division. We must, I think, give attention to that. Simultaneously, institutional autonomy is very important, and I know the project team will take caution as it deals with all of these issues. But I think it's very appropriate that the Membership Review Project team be doing this work."

During the Convention issue forum discussion, Kennesaw State's Waples said: "What if the big schools, the Division I schools, decide to drop out of this Association and form their own (association), which is a possibility. I would suggest we take all the money we can and put it into a trust fund that we can run our championships with until the day this organization dies."

At that moment, the logo behind the front table came untaped and, with a loud bang, crashed to the floor directly behind Bryant, who was chairing the forum. "Hey, Dave!" Bryant said. "You just killed the NCAA."

Of course, the NCAA survived the meeting, just as Division II certainly will survive the membership review. But notice has been served that this is one issue that will need to be handled with care.

Membership Review Project Team Discussion Topics

Options currently being discussed by the Division II Membership Review Project Team:

* Modify minimum sports-sponsorship requirements? (The current minimum requirement is four men's sports and four women's sports.)

-- Increase requirement to five men's sports and five women's sports or four and six.

-- Increase requirement to six and six or five and seven.

-- Count indoor/outdoor track as separate sports.

-- Prohibit use of Division I sports to meet any Division II requirement.

* Establish a menu of three or four options to satisfy a financial aid requirement? (There are no current Division II financial aid requirements.)

-- Require at least 50 percent of maximum grants in a minimum number of Division II sports.

-- Require a minimum number of total equivalencies, with at least 50 percent of the total being provided in women's sports.

-- Require a minimum aggregate expenditure in athletics aid.

-- Establish a minimum requirement that provides consideration to need-based aid.

-- Discuss inclusion/exclusion of basketball aid.

-- Discuss grandfathering of current nonscholarship institutions.

-- Discuss inclusion/exclusion of aid awarded in Division I sports.

* Change minimum scheduling requirements? (There currently are minimum requirements in football and basketball only.)

-- Additional requirements in other team sports.

-- Eliminate current requirements and use championships qualification minimums.

-- Discuss relationship to Division II regionalization policy.

-- Analyze potential effects on sports with low sponsorship numbers.