MONTEREY, California -- Image may not be everything, but the Division II Management Council decided that it was important enough to merit two hours of discussion during its July 23-24 meeting.

In the end, the message was about the mission.

Wallace I. Renfro, NCAA director of public relations, and Jack Farmer, a representative of the Fleishman-Hillard public relations firm, told the Council that Division II, along with the rest of the Association, must focus on its mission and then use that focus to develop consistent messages.

As an example of a mission inconsistency, Farmer pointed to recent research that showed that most college presidents surveyed believe that the purpose of the NCAA is to promote intercollegiate athletics. Only a small percentage of the presidents cited student-athlete welfare as an NCAA purpose. However, when asked about important issues facing intercollegiate athletics, the presidents cited student-athlete welfare as the most important.

Renfro said that the lack of a conconsensus over a mission makes it difficult for the Association to frame messages that can be effectively presented to the public. Without those messages, misconceptions that harm all of intercollegiate athletics fill the void.

"The great myth is that college athletics are awash with money, which means awash with profit," Renfro said. "This has an enormous impact with the public about our relationship with student-athletes. But the fact of the matter is that 94 cents on every dollar generated through the NCAA goes to the membership or to pay for goods and services."

Beyond the discussion about the NCAA image in general, the Management Council focused on DivisionII issues in particular. Farmer noted that research indicated that Division II leaders appear to want positive news stories, an increase in Division II pride and improved recruitment of high-school athletes as outcomes of a public relations or promotion plan. They are mostly concerned with reaching Division II media and fans, although acceptance by national media also was cited as an important objective.

Renfro and Farmer both emphasized the importance of moving any public relations plan forward under the overall NCAA umbrella ("The whole brand is at stake here," Farmer said). While the Management Council did not object to that concept, one member did note that it runs counter in some ways to modern-day NCAA philosophy.

Mike Marcil, commissioner of the North Central Conference, said that the NCAA is highly federated with many distinctions among the divisions. As a Division II representative, Marcil said he would like for student-athletes to understand that they likely have better access to Division II programs than to those in Division I and that fans certainly have better access to entertaining Division II events.

Mike L. Racy, Division II chief of staff, said the membership should remember that support of Division II does not imply criticism of Divisions I or III. Instead, the division should focus on its attributes.

"I think if we were starting anew," he said, "intercollegiate athletics might create priorities that look a lot like Division II. The model that the public wants is in this room."

As for what's next, Division II-specific research is a possibility. Farmer said it would help to acquire benchmark measurements both nationally and in regions where Division II athletics are known to be popular. That information could be used to develop messages and strategies specifically for Division II. The research would carry an additional price tag, probably in the $35,000 range. Any additional division-specific follow-through work also would have to be paid for with divisional funds.

Convention legislation

The Management Council devoted most of the rest of its attention to the work of the Membership Review Project Team and Bylaw 17 deregulation -- the marquee issues for the 2002 Convention in Indianapolis.

The Council approved several additional proposals to the membership review package, including:

Establishment of a provisional membership period for new Division II conferences.

Creation of a project team to study Division II football issues.

A requirement that postmoratorium provisional members satisfy minimum sports-sponsorship requirements and, if they are adopted, minimum financial aid requirements during the first two years of provisional membership.

A modification of the Division II Philosophy Statement to change current paragraph (e) and add new paragraph (f) as follows: "(e) [Division II] believes in offering opportunity for participation in intercollegiate athletics by awarding athletically related financial aid to student-athletes; (f) Believes that funds supporting the athletics department should be controlled by the institution within an institutionally approved budget."

A guideline to establish an annual limit on provisional member classes so that about 40 members are in the process at any one time. One conference would be slotted for each year, with no fewer than two and no more than four nonaffiliated institutions also selected (depending on the size of the selected conference).

Amendments also were added to previous proposals that would clarify the minimum financial aid requirement and would add minimum contest/participation requirements for indoor and outdoor track.

With regard to Bylaw 17, the Management Council continued to support a nine-proposal package that will be considered at the Convention. An additional concept -- relocating playing and practice season legislation for women's emerging sports from the Division II Manual to the NCAA Web site -- will not require a Convention vote.

If approved, the nine Convention proposals would:

Eliminate the requirement that individual skill instruction must be requested by the student-athlete.

Redefine what is considered a countable athletically related activity.

Limit participation by multiple-sport participants to 20 hours per week of countable athletically related activities.

Preclude exempted scrimmages from being counted as three hours of the permissible 20 hours and count as the actual duration of the activity.

Permit off-campus intrasquad scrimmages during the preseason period.

Eliminate the lists of annual exemptions and once-in-four-year exemptions in each section of Bylaw 17 and create two all-inclusive lists that will apply to all sports (amended to indicate that a discretionary exemption in basketball, specifically an exhibition contest, can be played against a non-Division II institution rather than restricting the contest only to Divisions I or III opponents).

Eliminate the prohibition against Sunday practice during spring football.

Preclude student-athletes in team sports from missing class to participate in contests conducted in the nonchampionship segment.

Championships

The Management Council also approved a number of recommendations from the Division II Championships Committee. The only proposal not to pass was one that would have established a predetermined site for the Division II Field Hockey Championship.

The Council spent considerable time on a pair of proposals relating to drug testing. Both were approved, but only after they were discussed at length.

The first authorizes a pilot study in 2001-02 to determine whether to establish a year-round drug-testing program for Division II baseball. The program will be set up so that the tests are "borrowed" from Division II football year-round tests and thus will not result in any additional expense for the division. Student-athletes tested would not be identified or penalized for a positive test since the purpose of the program would be to acquire data about baseball.

Several Management Council members expressed concern that the study could be distorted since only baseball players at football-playing institutions would be tested. Concern also was expressed about reducing the number of football tests during the overlap period. Ultimately, however, the Council concluded that the baseball pilot is necessary and that the recommended way is the only way that is financially achievable.

The other proposal was to eliminate the current practice of announcing before a championship that drug testing will be administered. Concern was expressed that the change in policy will make the program harder to administer, but a consensus agreed that the deterrent value of drug testing would be enhanced by the change. Since Divisions I and III opposed this change, the issue will likely go before the NCAA Executive Committee for discussion.

The Management Council also approved combined regionals for men's golf, guaranteeing Division II a position on the Women's Ice Hockey Committee (the NCAA Executive Committee likely will have to address this issue as well) and the allocation of $100,000 for a pilot program to market and promote specific Division II championships. The Management Council also agreed to clarify the process by which conferences could appeal automatic qualification decisions made by the Championships Committee.

Other highlights

Division II Management Council
July 23-24/Monterey, California

Approved a recommendation from the Committee on Women's Athletics to conduct educational sessions at key NCAA meetings throughout 2001-02 on homophobia and creating a safe environment for student-athletes.

Added a component to the institutional self-study guide on providing a safe environment for all students, including those with diverse sexual orientations.

Approved a women's athletics committee proposal to appoint an ad hoc committee to address rules development for emerging sports.

Approved a recommendation from the Division II Academic Requirements Committee to remove Bylaw 14.4.3.3.5 to permit courses taught via distance learning to be used to meet all continuing-eligibility requirements.

Approved a Division II budget of $15,425,238 for 2001-02.

Agreed to recommend that the Division II Presidents Council sponsor legislation at the 2002 Convention that would permit two-year college transfers who were partial qualifiers to practice during their initial year in residence when the individual does not satisfy the two-year college transfer requirements for competition. This was a change of position for the Management Council, which previously had voted not to advance the legislation.

Approved the recommendation of the Membership Committee to advance the following provisional members to year three of the four-year program: Goldey-Beacom College, Green Mountain College, Holy Family College, North Greenville College, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia and Wilmington College. The following institutions were advanced to year four: Benedict College; Bloomfield College; Caldwell College; Converse College; Dallas Baptist University; Dominican College (New York); Felcian College; Georgian Court College; Northwest Nazarene College; Nova Southeastern University; Ohio Valley College; Seattle University; St. Thomas Aquinas College; Teikyo Post University; Tiffin University; and the University of Minnesota, Crookston.

Approved an educational assessment program for postmoratorium provisional members.

Recommended legislation to establish penalties for noncompliance with the proposed financial aid minimum and voting conference requirements.

Approved funding for an educational video to explain the role of the senior woman administrator and how Division II institutions may enhance the position at the institutional and conference levels. The Management Council also recommended that the Presidents Council sponsor legislation for the 2003 Convention to clarify the role of the senior woman administrator position in Division II.

Appointed a project team to examine Division II graduation rates. Members from the Management Council include Tony Capon, University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown; Clyde Doughty Jr., New York Institute of Technology; Pam Gill-Fisher, University of California, Davis; Joan McDermott, Metropolitan State College of Denver; and Val Sheley, Presbyterian College. Ex officio members will be Bruce Harger, Drury University (Research Committee), and Mary Lisko, Augusta State University (Academic Requirements Committee).

Elected three new Management Council members. They will be announced after ratification by the Presidents Council in August.

Legislation Committee uses collective effort to simplify rules

BY CRISSY KAESEBIER
STAFF WRITER

MONTEREY, California -- The Division II Legislation Committee considered a wide variety of perspectives about Bylaw 14 during the fourth Division II Deregulation Summit, but after all the talking was finished, the primary message involved one simple notion: making the bylaw easier to use.

The Legislation Committee received input July 19-20 from the Division II Academic Requirements Committee, the Division II Commissioners Association, the Faculty Athletics Representative Association, the National Association of Collegiate Women's Athletic Administrators, Division II compliance coordinators and the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC). Although some suggestions were highly innovative, the prevailing message was to alter Bylaw 14 in a way that would make it easier for institutions to comprehend and implement the rules. Most of the focus fell on regulations involving transfer student-athletes and academic eligibility.

One idea included linking initial eligibility to whether a prospective student-athlete meets the normal admission standards of the institution. Another suggestion was to permit an enrolled student-athlete to drop a course even if it would take the athlete below the 12 hours required for eligibility (in the belief that athletes may be forced to accept a bad grade when a withdrawal might be in their best interests academically). More mainstream recommendations included eliminating prior approval for summer-school courses; eliminating penalties for student-athletes who do not immediately declare a major; allowing distance learning, night-school courses and classes taken at any branch of the student-athlete's institution to count toward satisfactory progress; seeking a better definition of "good academic standing"; and simplifying the qualifier/partial qualifier/non-qualifier sections of Bylaw 14.

Eliminating the need for student-athletes to receive prior approval from academic officials for summer-school classes taken at a different institution from their own would not influence the academic integrity of the student-athlete and would decrease compliance demands, said Sharon Taylor, director of athletics at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania.

"Why does the NCAA care if there is prior approval before a student-athlete takes a summer-school course? If the course is not academically sound, the institution will not accept it," Taylor said.

Augusta State University faculty athletics representative Mary Lisko said that prior approval does not necessarily work for student-athletes. "Although prior approval is an academically sound idea," she said, "it is a burden to student-athletes who go into a pre-approved class and then the class becomes unavailable. Now the student-athlete gets stuck and must get the new class approved before enrolling."

"We need to recognize the trend toward distance-learning classes," Lisko said. "If the institution allows the class to be acceptable for the curriculum, it should be allowed for student-athletes."

Lisko, representing the Academic Requirements Committee, also targeted Bylaw 14.4.3.1.3, which states that student-athletes are to declare a degree before the beginning of their third year of enrollment. Once a major is declared, all courses that lead to completion of that degree count toward satisfactory-progress requirements. The result is that student-athletes who have not declared a major are allowed to take any course to meet grade-point average and satisfactory-progress requirements.

"We are currently penalizing student-athletes who have committed to a major by allowing undecided student-athletes to take any classes toward their certification," said Jerry Vandergriff, athletics director at Angelo State University "The motivation for some student-athletes is to stay eligible. The difficulty of coursework in a particular major could change their minds about which major to choose."

The Legislation Committee also focused on the GPA requirements for first- and second-year students. Discussion assessed raising the GPA standard, which requires a 1.600 GPA after the first year, a 1.800 after the second year, and a 2.000 after the third year.

Mike Kovalchik, athletics director at Hillsdale College said, "I have concerns about implementing a 2.000 requirement after the freshmen year because freshman student-athletes are not on an equal playing field. Fall student-athletes have no time to get acclimated to college academics, while winter and spring sports have more time. Some institutions already have higher GPA standards in place anyway."

Lisko said, "The philosophy of the NCAA is that athletics is part of the educational process and being a student is the top priority. Allowing student-athletes to take less than a full course load increases the number of years necessary to graduate and would prevent a student-athlete from ever being a full-time student while competing."

To promote deregulation, submitting all transfers to equal standards would eliminate many compliance issues and decrease the size of the Manual.

"I am concerned about the inconsistent application of rules with transfer student-athletes," said Diane Husic, faculty athletics representative at East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania. "Any time we can treat people the same, the better it is."

Other proposals advanced to the Legislation Committee included:

Reorganizing the bylaw by better categorizing initial eligibility, continuing eligibility, transfer regulations, etc.

Removing any references to Divisions I and III in the Division II Manual.

Consolidating rules pertaining to international students.

Allow both recruited and non-recruited student-athletes to practice, but not compete, for a maximum of 30 calendar days without NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse certification, provided the student is enrolled full-time or has been accepted for enrollment as a regular full-time student.