The Division II Management Council agreed at its October 20-21 meeting in Indianapolis to create a menu format for the Division II conference grant program so that member conferences will be more able to provide financial resources according to local needs.

The proposal, which still must be approved by the Division II Presidents Council, would create two categories of Division II conference grant expenses: required uses and permissive uses. The plan would not affect the total amount of money available to each conference through the current grant program.

Three categories are identified for required uses: conference diversity and governance structure enhancements, student-athlete enhancements and academic support enhancements. For 2004-05, each conference would be allocated $71,000 for those categories and would be expected to spend at least $15,000 on each of the three. In addition, for 2004-05, each conference would receive an additional $24,000 (for a total of $95,000), which could be expended on any of the required categories or among as many as three of seven "permissive uses." Those permissive uses would be compliance and rules education programs, officiating development programs, promotions/identity programs, technology enhancements, professional development programs, sportsmanship programs and a consortium for multiple conferences to address a variety of issues identified in the Division II strategic plan.

Management Council member Tom Brown, commissioner of the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and a member of the Budget and Finance Committee, said the menu approach would provide conferences with the opportunity to bundle funds so that they could meet their priorities rather than being bound by a one-size-fits-all national approach.

If approved by the Presidents Council, the proposal would take effect for the 2004-05 fiscal year, which means that conferences would be required to use the new standard for the next conference grant application period in February 2004. The Budget and Finance Committee originally considered making the change effective for 2005-06 so as to give the membership time to adjust, but it instead concluded that the benefits of the change would outweigh the liability of imposing a new process on conference offices.

Brown told the Management Council that Division II conference commissioners strongly support the modified approach. He also noted that conferences will be required annually to account for uses of grants, as they are now.

For 2005-06, each conference will be entitled to $105,000 in grant money ($79,000 required and $26,000 permissive if the plan is adopted). In 2006-07, the figure would be $115,000 ($86,000 required and $29,000 permissive).

Championships

The Management Council also accepted a recommendation from the Division II Championships Committee to oppose membership Proposal Nos. 2-52 and 2-53 at the 2004 NCAA Convention. No. 2-52 would eliminate student-athlete unavailability because of injury as a consideration for championships selection; would require the governing sports committees to recognize official action taken by the NCAA, conference or member institutions in cases of ineligible student-athletes; and would require that the governing sports committees consider contests involving ineligible student-athletes as losses for the involved student-athletes' institutions and as wins for the opposing institutions. No. 2-53 would require that contests or dates of competition that are forfeited by either the conference, an independent institution or the NCAA be counted as a loss for the offending team and as a win for the opponent.

Joan McDermott, Management Council vice-chair and chair of the Division II Championships Committee, said the Championships Committee agreed that the issues raised in both proposals have merit. However, she said the Championships Committee was concerned that both proposals as written could have unintended consequences.

In the alternative, the Management Council supported the Championship Committee's recommendation to appoint a project team to review the issues on an expedited basis. That project team would be appointed through authority provided by a resolution that will be considered at the 2004 Convention.

Because the affected area involves Bylaw 31, the matter does not require Convention action. That means that the project team's recommendations likely could be acted upon and put in place in a timeline consistent with that outlined in Proposal Nos. 2-52 and 2-53 (August 1, 2004, effective date).

Health and safety

The Management Council voted not to support a recommendation from the Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports to adopt an all-sport drug-testing program for Division II. The program would have cost Division II $266,000. The Management Council instead referred the proposal back to the competitive-safeguards committee with a directive to determine if that cost could be lowered, perhaps by reducing the number of year-round tests of football players (14) and applying those tests to other sports. New expense still would be incurred to test programs that do not sponsor football, but the Council thought the total cost might be well below $266,000.

The Council did endorse in principle another competitive-safeguards committee proposal to establish an acclimatization and recovery model for all fall sports with preseason practice, using the recovery principles established for football. Division I has approved such a policy for 2004, but Division II did not commit to a time frame.

The Council asked the competitive-safeguards committee to work with the various sports committees to provide models for each sport that would be affected. It also noted that it will review follow-up research designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the changes to football preseason practices.

Graduation rates

The Council also asked the President Council to sponsor legislation at the 2005 Convention to require, as a condition of active membership, that Division II institutions complete annually a supplemental report to measure the academic success of their student-athletes.

If approved, the legislation would become effective for the 2005-06 academic year, with the first reports made in spring 2006.

The supplemental report, to be known as the "academic success rate," would take into account factors that tend to depress rates in the annual study mandated by the federal Student-Right-to-Know Act (which will continue to be administered). In particular, the new report will assess nonscholarship athletes and transfer students, which either are not counted or are counted as non-graduates in the federally mandated methodology.

The Graduation-Rates Project Team believes that the alternate report not only will provide a more accurate representation of the academic performance of Division II student-athletes, but it also will provide the Division II Academic Requirements Committee and other decision-makers with more data to aid in decision-making regarding Division II academic standards.

Other highlights

Division II Management Council
October 20-21/Indianapolis

NCAA President Myles Brand met with the Management Council and addressed minority hiring in football and the Division I economic baseline study.

Modified wording in Bylaw 17 to make playing and practice seasons for women's bowling consistent with other National Collegiate championship sports.

Affirmed a recommendation from the Division II Championships Committee to move back the three-point line in men's and women's basketball. Division III voted to oppose the new line, so the Executive Committee will review the matter, probably in January.

Voted to establish a Women's Lacrosse Rules Committee (action also required by Divisions I and III).

Agreed to recommend legislation to amend Bylaws 3.6.1.6 and 20.5 to clarify that an institution that desires to begin the Division II provisional or reclassifying process must meet Division II financial aid minimums to ensure that athletics aid is provided to multiple teams and to both genders.

Elected a new chair who will replace Tony Capon of the University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown, at the end of the 2004 Convention. The new chair must be ratified by the Presidents Council at its October 30 meeting. The Presidents Council also will ratify three new selections to the Management Council at that time.

Accepted a recommendation from the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee to incorporate the following "issues of concern" as action items in the 2004-07 Division II strategic plan: Educate the membership on the health, safety and liability risks of using 15-passenger vans; research and evaluate the use of student-athletes driving institutional vans to and from away-from-campus contests; evaluate the term "voluntary activities" to determine if a new definition is needed to clarify the time-demand expectations placed on Division II student-athletes; develop a plan to hold coaches accountable for their actions in their relationships with student-athletes to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all Division II student-athletes; and review the role of the national Student-Athlete Advisory Committee in the division's decision-making process and evaluate the need for SAAC representation on the Division II Management Council.

Approved development of an educational program regarding the 20-hour and eight-hour rules similar to a program developed for Division I institutions.

Discussed ways to improve attendance at Division II Student-Athlete Leadership Action Academies.

Agreed to provide an additional $5,000 to the Make-A-Wish Foundation if the national Division II SAAC's national fund-raising effort reaches that level.

Heard a report from David Schnase, director of membership services, on how rules are being applied in ways that are more advantageous to student-athletes. Schnase said that decision-making in cases without precedent previously tilted toward the assurance of competitive equity among member institutions; now, however, committees and staff are being asked to look at cases with the interests of student-athletes as a primary consideration. Schnase emphasized that the new policy does not mean that the rules book is being disregarded. In fact, rules will be applied as before when the meaning or precedent is clear.