When it comes to rules enforcement, Division II never will be Division I.

Division I always is going to have more infractions cases under consideration, and those cases generally are going to
be more complex. "The stakes are higher in Division I, the boosters are more aggressive and the institutions have more resources," said David Price, NCAA vice-president for enforcement services.

But while the extravagant recruiting inducement or the over-the-top extra benefit may be less likely to occur in Division II, those in the know say that Division II is just as susceptible as any other division to a number of mundane problems that require institutional and membership attention.

First, some numbers: In the five-year period preceding membership restructuring in 1997, the NCAA Committee on Infractions -- at the time an Association-wide committee -- processed 65 cases. Of those 65 cases, 55 involved Division I institutions, seven involved Division II and three pertained to Division III.

In 1997, the NCAA adopted a federated style of governance, and each division established its own Committee on Infractions. Since 1998, the three infractions committees have processed 50 cases, 43 of them in Division I and seven in Division II. In addition, two Division II cases are pending, along with one in Division III.

Add it all up and the numbers show that almost 85 percent of all infractions cases preceding membership restructuring involved Division I institutions. Since restructuring, the figure has been about the same -- a bit more than 80 percent if the pending cases are counted.

Lopsided though they are, those figures pose no problem for Julie Hill, chair of the Division II Committee on Infractions and senior woman administrator at the University of Northern Colorado.

"I don't think we would have the same number as cases as Division I," said Hill. "They have a different level of problem in Division I."

But a different level of problem doesn't mean that Division II is without issues. Hill and Les Brinson, her predecessor as infractions committee chair, both believe that the division has violations bubbling beneath the surface, and both believe that the Division II membership could do a better job of self-policing.

"I don't know if Division II self-reporting is working as well as it should," Hill said. "In talking with staff members from other schools, they'll say that if you're self-reporting, you're not doing a very good job. But I think exactly the opposite is true. If you're not self-reporting, you're not doing your job."

The NCAA tracks self-reported secondary violations, and those figures indicate that Division I last year submitted about 6.5 times more self-reported violations than Division II. Perhaps more revealingly, the percentage of self-reported violations has increased by 48.2 percent in Division I since 1997. In Division II, the percentage has increased by just 14.7 percent during the same period.

Brinson, faculty athletics representative at North Carolina Central University, said the system works best when each member accepts responsibility for complying with the rules. "That's true for society in general, but it's especially true for Division II because of our limited resources," he said.

But Brinson believes that some aggressive Division II programs are willfully failing to report known problems.

"The quality of the NCAA staff is excellent, and so is the sincerity of their commitment (in conducting investigations)," he said. "But what happens when you leave the formal inquiries and go back in the trenches? I'm convinced that issues haven't surfaced. The problem is what doesn't come up in the reports. That's speculation on my part, but I'm fairly convinced it's correct."

Mike Marcil, chair of the Division II Management Council and a former member of the Division II Committee on Infractions, is more upbeat about the current condition, but no less committed to the concept of self-policing.

"What I've found to be so positive in Division II is that we're working both the educational and enforcement side," he said. "They really do go hand-in-hand. We are developing the Compliance Blueprint program to assist institutions in reviewing their compliance programs and getting checks and balances put in place. Then at the same time, we have responded to cases where institutions lack institutional control through a Division II-specific Committee on Infractions."

The division-specific approach is important. Before restructuring, all cases were heard by an Association-wide committee that was dominated by Division I interests. Now, as Price said, "What you have is judgment by peers."

"In Division I," Marcil said, "so many times when problems are found, it seems there are people external to the institution involved, supporters and boosters. In Division II, you'll notice that a lot of the cases involve coaches operating outside the guidelines, and maybe not always with the assistance of people external to the institutions.

"I know that the Committee on Infractions really tries to focus on the responsibility that all coaches have to know the rules and fully comply with them -- especially in the area of impermissible recruiting inducements and extra benefits for student-athletes."

That provides more reason to self-report, said Mike Racy, Division II chief of staff.

"It's true that Division I has more rules, more schools and more participants," Racy said, "but it's also true that Division II relies much more on part-time coaches. It stands to reason that they need more rules-compliance oversight and that they might be the source of a number of secondary rules violations."

Although the membership may whisper that the enforcement staff focuses excessively on Division I-A, Price said that Division II gets proper attention when investigation becomes necessary.

"When we get cases," Price said, "we don't try to weigh whether they are Division I, II or III. We tend to get a lot more of Division I, but we don't hesitate to send people out to investigate in Divisions II or III."

Moreover, the enforcement staff does not necessarily use junior staff to investigate non-Division I cases. In the recent past, a director-level enforcement staff member investigated a marquee Division I case and then took a Division II case as his next assignment.

Brinson and Hill, speaking from authoritative viewpoints, endorse the service that the enforcement staff has provided for Division II.

"I have had no problem with the NCAA being able to do what is fair and equitable," Brinson said.

"Everyone is so helpful," Hill said of the enforcement staff. "They are looking for ways to help the institutions be better. I've been very impressed with the NCAA staff."

That's good, Marcil said, because voluntary compliance means nothing if it's not backed by an effective enforcement program.

"Enforcement is always important for the institutions that are following the rules and those that are not," he said. "It reinforces all the good work of the schools that are trained to comply with all the rules. It's important to make sure they receive that kind of positive reinforcement, knowing that there's a strong enforcement program.

"On the other hand, it helps to deter those who may not want to follow the rules and also hold some people responsible."

Times may be changing in Division II's approach to compliance world

Division II appears to have embraced its Compliance Blueprint program, a voluntary arrangement in which the national office staff provides an institution with a compliance assessment after a campus visit.

So far, about 15 institutions have used the program. The staff is equipped to handle about 15 visits annually.

The program is so popular, in fact, that a segment of the membership has proposed making it -- or something like it -- mandatory.

The intent of the proposal, co-sponsored by the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association and the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference, is to require that at least once every 10 years an institution's rules-compliance program shall be the subject of review by the NCAA, the conference office or an authority outside of the athletics department approved by the conference office.

The proposal experienced some turbulence at the July Management Council meeting, where concern was expressed that such an approach could move Division II away from voluntary compliance and more toward the athletics certification required by Division I. Division II strongly rejected athletics certification at the 1996 Convention.

Regardless of the fate of the legislation, the MIAA and PSAC are prominent Division II conferences, and their willingness to stretch the compliance envelope may reveal something of a trend.

For the last decade or so, institutional rules compliance typically has been handled as part of another job -- in most cases, coaching. But as the expectation for rules compliance grows, the membership may be taking a fresh look at how the task should be administered.

"I think the role of the compliance coordinator is changing in Division II," said Julie Hill, chair of the Division II Committee on Infractions. "In the past, a coach may have served in that role, but now, more institutions are seeing the importance of the position and hiring full-time compliance coordinators. That person likely is more qualified to be in the position and doesn't have the conflict of serving as a coach or in another position."

Hiring a full-time compliance officer would be a big step for many cash-strapped Division II institutions, but Hill believes it could be money well-spent if it keeps a program from going down a bad path.

In the meantime, Division II Management Council Chair Mike Marcil said that institutions are encouraged to use the Compliance Blueprint program.

"Even in informal conversation, what you hear about the program is very positive," he said. "At this point, I haven't heard of any institution that has been involved that has had a negative impression of the process."

Institutions interested in more information about the Compliance Blueprint program should call Keith Gill, director of membership services, at the national office.

-- David Pickle