The Division II Management and Presidents Council used a joint meeting at the 2002 Convention January 12 to look at several big-picture issues facing the division.

Although their discussions were informal and not binding in any way, they did provide insight on how the membership's leadership might view Division II priorities over the next several years.

In particular, the members of the two Councils discussed an update of the division's strategic plan. Small groups of athletics administrators and institutional chief executive officers were asked to choose among important items in the Division II plan and develop thoughts on how the plan might be adjusted over the next several years. The participants focused on the following:

Student-athlete welfare, especially with respect to academics. One group concluded that Division II should articulate a stronger commitment to promoting the academic success of its student-athletes. As programs such as the Division II Student-Athlete Assistance Fund and conference grants are developed and enhanced, the Council members said a primary use of the money should relate to elements that aid academic development (supplies, tutors, equipment, etc.). One member also suggested examining the correlation between different initial-eligibility standards in Divisions I and II and higher graduation rates in Division I.

Role of the senior woman administrator. The Council members all appeared to support strengthening the role of the SWA, but they were concerned about how that goal may be affected by economic factors such as hiring freezes, budget cuts and poor investment returns on university endowments. The group expressed the view that an enhanced SWA should be viewed as a high-ranking of the overall athletics department (not just women's sports) and as an individual who can help a small department with important responsibilities such as game management, budgeting and personnel considerations. While the group believed that an institutional senior woman administrator should not be required legislatively, it also concluded that the position is one that every department should want to have.

Championships. Support was noted for the spring sports festival -- a collection of six Division II spring championships that will be conducted at a common site once every four years beginning in 2004. Not only did the group support the concept, it concluded that the division should explore whether to require all spring sports to participate in such a festival in future years. It also believed the Division II Championships Committee should be considering similar festivals for other seasons and that the other divisions should be approached to determine their interest in participating. An acknowledgement was made that such events could be limited because of how difficult they are to produce.

Public image and graduation rates

The Management and Presidents Councils also heard reports on the Division II public image and on the activities of the Division II Graduation-Rates Project Team. In one important way, the reports related to one another.

Wally Renfro, NCAA director of public relations, discussed research findings about Division II perceptions. Among other things, the research showed that 98 percent of the Division II membership regarded graduation rates as one of the division's key attributes. However, Division II's graduation rates actually are only 49 percent for all student-athletes -- 9 percent lower than the Division I rate -- using the methodology required by the federal government's Student Right-to-Know Act.

Tony Capon, faculty athletics representative at the University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown, said the project team believes that the Division II figure is artificially depressed because the study counts only student-athletes who receive athletically related aid. Because far more Division II student-athletes participate without financial aid than their peers in Division I, comparing the two divisions is something of an apples-and-oranges exercise. The situation is exacerbated because a high percentage of financial aid in Division II is awarded in football and basketball, meaning those sports are overmeasured in portraying the Division II graduation rate.

The Graduation-Rates Project Team is considering a pilot of an alternative report that would better measure all participants. While the motivation is good and the need for the supplemental study is compelling, Capon and Renfro both warned that developing a "more positive" report would not automatically be a public relations boon.

"The government's report has been around for about 10 years now," Renfro said, "and whether or not people like it, they have to understand that it has significant standing. So I think that any group that wants to develop an alternate report must be prepared to demonstrate in a clear, understandable way why its numbers are something other than self-serving."

(At the Division II chief executive officer luncheon the next day, one CEO illustrated the less positive flip side of the issue. He noted that while the overall Division II student-athlete population may graduate at a level equal to or even higher than Division I, the fact that Division II athletes receiving athletically related aid perform so poorly compared to those who do not receive aid should be major cause for concern.)

Beyond graduation rates, Renfro said that the study revealed that the Division II membership has a vague self-image. The research seemed in a number of ways seemed to confirm the division's chronic "middle-child" attitude, revealing that most Division II members consider the division to be in the middle of the NCAA spectrum both athletically and academically.

Some members of the Presidents Council were frustrated that Division II does not get credit for conducting quality competition in an environment that is not overly commercialized. However, at the January 13 CEO luncheon, one president questioned how aggressively the division should promote itself. After all, he said, the fact that Division II is in commercial and competitive control is one of its most appealing characteristics.

Renfro agreed and said that the division needs to give careful consideration to how a successful Division II promotion campaign would be measured. Is the objective higher attendance and more television exposure, or is it more qualitative considerations, such as achieving greater pride among the Division II membership?

Division II identity survey highlights