As the result of action taken at a streamlined January 14 business session, Division II now finds itself in a better defined and more legislatively deregulated condition.

Delegates attending the 2002 NCAA Convention in Indianapolis approved all parts of legislative packages designed to manage membership growth and deregulate Bylaw 17. While elements of both packages were debated, all of the proposals were approved by more than 65 percent of those voting.

The delegates approved 13 proposals and one amendment-to-amendment recommended by the Division II Membership Review Project Team. They were designed to create standards that assure that Division II programs continue to resemble one another as the division expands in the years to come. At the sametime, the project team crafted the proposals so as not to adversely affect the existing active membership.

The membership endorsed most of the proposals by an almost unanimous show of paddles or vote counts that exceeded or approached 90 percent. The two most significant proposals -- No. 16, which established a minimum financial aid requirement, and No. 17, which increased the number of sports required for Division II membership -- were approved by 89 and 93 percent of the voters, respectively.

Lea Rudee, faculty athletics representative at the University of California, San Diego, urged the membership to be more flexible about its position regarding financial aid. Saying that his institution -- which does not grant athletically related aid -- regards the requirement as "an infringement on institutional autonomy," Rudee said that his chancellor will ask the division to consider an alternate model through which institutions awarding only need-based aid would be required to meet a higher test for sports sponsorship. He suggested that such institutions might be required to sponsor as many as 14 sports for Division II membership, compared to the 10 that are now required of all members.

Even if alternative legislation is not developed, UC San Diego likely will be able to retain its Division II membership through a provision contained in Proposal No. 16, which states that the Management Council can waive the financial aid requirement if circumstances warrant.

Other proposals in the membership-review package established a required one-year exploratory period for prospective Division II members, limited the annual number of members that may be accepted for provisional membership, established greater rules-compliance standards for provisional and reclassifying members, strengthened requirements for conference membership and modified the Division II philosophy statement.

Bylaw 17 deregulation

Most of the nine proposals and one amendment-to-amendment in the Bylaw 17 package were approved by lopsided margins after minimum debate. Two proposals, however, were more closely considered than the rest.

The first was Proposal No. 24, which will prohibit student-athletes in team sports from missing class time for competition during the nonchampionship segment.

Kyle Guerrant, a Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) representative from C.W. Post Campus/Long Island University, said that the proposal "will hinder, rather than promote, student-athlete welfare" and said that the issue is better addressed at the institutional level. Another delegate said that the proposal "flew in the face of legislative deregulation" and that the issue presented "no need to supercede institutional autonomy and the ability to govern ourselves."

The membership voted 162-83-2 to approve the proposal. However, more debate came about after a motion to reconsider was introduced. Heather Andrews of Missouri Southern State College, SAAC chair, said no data were available to demonstrate that students were harmed academically by a limited amount of missed class time in the nonchampionship segment. However, Paul Engelmann, chair of the Legislation Committee and faculty athletics representative at Central Missouri State University, said, "The first obligation of students is to be in class when class is scheduled. I'm sorry: You simply do not get the same presentation out of class as when class is taught." The motion to reconsider failed, 90-147-2.

The delegates also approved Proposal No. 26, which redefined playing and practice seasons for fall and spring sports, except outdoor track and field. Michael Kovalchik, athletics director at Hillsdale College and a member of the Division II Management Council, said the proposal was "perhaps the most significant change since Division II began legislative deregulation" in 2000.

Although the proposal did not command the plurality achieved by the other parts of the Bylaw 17 deregulation package, it still passed by a count of 182-63-0. Steven Rackley, athletics director at the University of Findlay, spoke against the legislation, saying that it would create an uneven competitive environment in golf. "Sometimes, a blanket policy isn't the best policy," he said. However, proponents said that the proposal was worthwhile and could be adjusted as necessary through the interpretations process.

The delegates amended the proposal through No. 26-1, an amendment-to-amendment for women's rowing that will allow the sport to conduct a 45-day training period in a 60-day window in the fall (nonchampionship) segment.

Other actions

Division II Presidents Council Chair Patricia P. Cormier, president of Longwood College, presided over a business session that was structured differently from others in recent years. Most notably, she requested the staff to develop a "Division II Yearbook," which was distributed at the business session and contained Division II news and committee reports from the preceding year (the yearbook now is available in the Division II section of NCAA Online). Because the reports no longer were delivered orally, the delegates were able to begin the voting process at 8:26 a.m. Voting was complete at 11:40 a.m., and the session adjourned shortly after noon.

Only two of the 41 proposals and amendments-to-amendments considered by the membership were defeated.

No. 31 was sponsored by the Presidents Council and would have permitted institutions to place general institutional, summer camp and summer school advertisements in recruiting publications and high-school and two-year college game programs. However, several delegates spoke against the proposal in the belief that institutions quickly would become obligated to purchase such advertising. "This (the current) legislation is here for a purpose," said James E. Fallis, director of athletics at the University of Northern Colorado.

At first, the legislation appeared to have passed. However, the electronic display at the front of the hall indicated that the delegates were voting on Proposal No. 30, rather than No. 31. Parliamentarian Lawrence E. Fitzgerald, faculty athletics director at Southern Connecticut State University, said a revote was necessary, and on the second vote, the proposal failed, 117-123-1.

The other proposal to fail was No. 30, a membership-sponsored proposal that would have permitted member institutions and conferences to contract with photographers to produce and sell photographs and videos to the general public.