Over the last five years, Division II has demonstrated itself to be the most risk-tolerant of the three membership divisions.

That sounds like a brag, but it's really nothing more than the truth. In fact, in an enterprise as complicated and multi-faceted as intercollegiate athletics, no single solution to any problem is necessarily the right one. But in the five years since membership restructuring occurred in 1997, Division II has shown time and again that it is willing to take the road less traveled when it comes to policy-making.

Amateurism? Division II was the first and most aggressive in addressing the issue. The membership approved legislation at the 2001 Convention that fundamentally changed traditional NCAA policy toward pre-enrolled student-athletes. It provided new opportunities for failed professionals and also addressed competitive-equity concerns. Division III approved a narrower version of the proposal at this year's Convention; Division I continues to examine the issue.

Diversity? After NCAA research showed that Division II was regressing on minority hiring among athletics administrators, the division in 1999 established the Division II Strategic Alliance Matching Grant Program, a competitive-grant program that provides NCAA matching funds for institutions willing to hire women or minorities in administrative positions. Division II now commits $500,000 annually to the program. Division III recently has implemented a similar initiative.

Championships? Division II will pioneer a spring sports festival in 2004 involving six of its championships. Divisions I and III are watching with interest.

Graduation rates? Division II, troubled by the limited scope of the existing federally mandated graduation-rate study, developed a pilot program that may enable the division to create an expanded report that would include transfer students and student-athletes who are not receiving athletically related financial aid. Division I has similar concerns with the current report and continues to consider how it could be supplemented.

'Student-athlete-friendly'

Division II administrators who have participated in the governance process believe that the division's ability to accept change is rooted in several factors:

* Over the last five years, the division has worked hard on developing a more common understanding of what Division II membership stands for.

* Division II has an effective strategic plan in place and has communicated effectively on important issues.

* Change in Division II carries less risk than it does in Division I.

More than anything else, Division II advocates believe the division has carved out a niche as the most student-athlete-friendly segment of the NCAA. The level of athletics competition can be high in Division II, but it's not so high as to exclude participation opportunities for non-elite athletes. Athletically related aid is available, but the full grant-in-aid is rare indeed. In other words, supporters consider Division II a balanced world where student-athletes can thrive.

"I've maintained for years that among the smaller schools -- and I would consider that to be anything under 10,000 -- the best place for student-athletes is in Division II," said Ken Borden, faculty athletics representative at the University of Indianapolis. "In Division II, we see athletics as being part of the university experience and we recognize and reward, at least to a small extent, student-athletes for their athletics ability and allow them to use that ability to help them earn a degree."

That notion of scale -- the idea that athletics is part of the university experience and that athletics ability often results in a partial award -- may aid the relationship between students and administrators and result in their willingness to partner in unique ways.

The entire Division II Student-Athlete Committee participated in discussions that led to the deregulation of Bylaw 17, and Legislation Committee Chair Paul Engelmann, faculty athletics representative at Central Missouri State University, said that the committee may invite the SAAC again when it examines Bylaw 16 this summer.

In fact, except for an ongoing dispute involving telephone calls as part of the recruiting process, legislative deregulation in Division II has consistently accommodated student-athletes.

"Other than the telephone-call issue," Engelmann said, "I can't think of a single item that we have put up for deregulation during the past three Conventions that hasn't either had direct student-athlete input or in which student-athlete concerns were not the primary consideration."

Student-athletes and the Management Council also participate each summer in a summit meeting that is designed to develop better mutual understandings on important issues facing Division II. The annual summit is required through legislation that was approved as part of the restructuring process. The idea was considered quirky when it was conceived, but it since has become one of the foundations of the Division II legislative process.

Sailing the Division II boat

Student-athlete interests also have been considered beyond legislation. The Division II Championships Committee last year established the 2004 spring sports festival in an effort to enhance the championships experience for Division II student-athletes. Although committee Chair Lisa Colvin, senior woman administrator at Southern Arkansas University, believes the idea will enhance promotion and improve attendance, she knows the project comes with risk.

"I guess that's what the other divisions are waiting to see," she said in acknowledging that no other division has chosen to follow suit. "If it's a big success, they can ride on the success and learn from the problems we experience in Division II. But we figure, what the heck? Let's go ahead. We know there are going to be problems, challenges and high expectations."

But the prize could be a new -- and better -- way of conducting championships, not just for Division II but for the Association in general.

"For so long," Colvin said, "we've always waited for Division I to see what happens with them. Well, now with federation, it's like we're in this Division II boat. Let's just sail it ourselves and not be towed by another division."

The desire to act is one thing, but the ability to build a sufficient consensus to move forward is another. In that regard, the division has benefited from an unusually inclusive process, said Peggy Green, senior woman administrator at Fayetteville State University and former Management Council liaison to the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

"From the time the NCAA restructured, Division II stressed that everybody -- from the presidents all the way to the student-athletes -- should be involved in the decision-making," Green said. "We started with the annual summit and told the athletes, 'Let us hear what you are thinking.' And that was not easy because it required tact from both the student-athletes and the administrators. But over the years, I think everybody has learned to listen better."

Borden agreed that Division II's most important successes have been more the result of perspiration and patience rather than inspiration and impulse.

"They have been projects that we've had committees and groups working on for years," he said. "We've tried to look at these from a number of different angles in trying to make things workable or to eliminate as much as we can the possible problems before we ask the membership to vote on it. It's not like somebody brings it up and says, 'Hey, what do you think about this?' "

Management Council Chair Mike Marcil, commissioner of the North Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, wants the ultimate result of recent and future action to be a division with a better identity and a proper sense of self-esteem.

"Everybody has always thought of Division I being so much better in all ways," he said. "Hopefully, people are beginning to think of Division II as being balanced and as being a good environment for student-athletes. We shouldn't feel that we're 'worse' than Division I, nor that we're 'better' than Division III."

But Division II can believe that it now offers something different.

"There are a lot of people out there who think that if something isn't on television or on the front page of the sports section, it's not worth much," said Jack Copeland, former NCAA News managing editor who closely follows competition in the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association. "But I see evidence pretty much on a daily basis that Division II athletics offers high-quality competition, but at a level at which students, parents and fans can feel involved in and close to the action.

"And I can't help but think that would be pretty infectious to anyone who gave it a chance."

Division II building new model under revised structure

The modern Division II was established in 1997 at a time when its membership may have been highly motivated to create change.

Jack Copeland, who formerly covered Division II governance issues for The NCAA News, believes that Divisions I and III arguably carried their identities from the old structure to the new. Division II, however, took the opportunity to build something different, he said.

"Division II schools have been anxious for a long time to attract more attention from potential students, the public and the media -- something that's been awfully hard to do when most of the attention goes to big schools with nationwide or statewide followings," Copeland said. "But to its great credit, Division II has turned that anxiety into something positive.

"Rather than just simply try to get bigger, Division II consciously has worked to make itself distinct from Divisions I and III, borrowing the best elements from those groups and weaving them into something unique. That's a great approach because it allows Division II to retain its best quality -- keeping competition at what I've always considered a 'human scale' -- while trying new ideas."

Copeland said Division II generally starts from a base of "just playing ball" and therefore doesn't have to defend the value of college athletics on several different fronts. As a result, he said, Division II occasionally can try ideas that aren't politically feasible in Division I, or for that matter Division III.

"I think that benefits not only Division II, but in the long run benefits the entire Association," Copeland said, "because if an idea turns out to be overwhelmingly positive at one level, chances are it will work well at other levels, too."

Ken Borden, faculty athletics representative at the University of Indianapolis, said that Division II can adapt more easily than Division I because the stakes are different.

"First, we don't have as much money involved and, second, we don't see ourselves as being in the entertainment business," he said. "We don't have as much to lose. When I look at some of the Division I programs and some of the financial rewards -- say, for example, men's basketball -- there is such a high financial commitment there that they are more reluctant to make waves."

One administrator who asked not to be identified said, "There is less risk for us. The costs of us making a mistake aren't as big as the cost of Division I making a mistake."

Be that as it may, the division's leadership is proud of Division II's willingness to take an occasional well-reasoned chance.

"We've done it in an orderly way," said Management Council Chair Mike Marcil, commissioner of the North Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference. "We worked on our philosophy, then our core principles and then developed a strategic plan for the long-term vision. Then we attacked specific issues. Then we accomplished our objectives through the committee structure. It's an ideal way for an organization to do business."

-- David Pickle