When the title game of the 2003 Division II Men's Basketball Championship tipped off March 29, most of the 10 starters were transfers from Division I institutions.

That fact sparked a discussion at the April 24 meeting of the Division II Presidents Council: Was the circumstance an anomaly or is permissive Division II transfer legislation creating competitive-equity and image issues within Division II?

"Nobody is accusing the participating schools (Kentucky Wesleyan University and Northeastern State University) of any wrongdoing," said Kay Schallenkamp, president of Emporia State University and Presidents Council chair. "However, the Presidents Council is interested in the issue in a broad sense and wants additional examination about what factors might be at work."

A transferring student-athlete is eligible to compete immediately in Division II as long as the originating institution certifies that the student-athlete would have been eligible to compete had he or she remained at that school. In Division I, transferring student-athletes in ice hockey, basketball and football usually must complete a year in residence at the new Division I institution before competing.

"I think the real question is motivation," Schallenkamp said. "Are the student-athletes initiating these transfers for the right reasons? Or are coaches recruiting them and bringing them in for a quick fix or a one-shot deal?"

Schallenkamp understands the complexities of the issue since Emporia State's women's basketball team recently benefited from a Division I transfer. "But I know that was for the right reasons," she said. "She was from Kansas and had competed for two years at a junior college in Kansas. She went to a Division I school in Louisiana, and it mattered to her that her parents never could see her play. So she transferred to Emporia State. I don't believe anyone wants to prevent that sort of flexibility."

Likewise, Dusty Bonner, who won the Harlon Hill Award in 2000 and 2001 as the top player in Division II football, transferred to his hometown school of Valdosta State University when he realized he was never going to get significant playing time behind future pro Tim Couch at the University of Kentucky. Not only was Bonner an excellent quarterback, he had an almost perfect grade-point average.

Those cases, and many others like them, point to the benefit of Division II's current one-time transfer exemption. However, if Division I transfers are concentrated among a few schools in marquee events, the playing field may be unleveled and the public perception of Division II may become skewed.

"During the telecast of the basketball championship game, the commentators made repeated references to the Division I transfers," said Mike Racy, Division II chief of staff. "That's understandable since that was an obvious story from their perspective. After all, three of the best players in the championship game were recent Division I transfers.

"The perception that concerns the Presidents Council is that to win Division II championships, you must find Division I student-athletes who are interested in transferring. The truth, of course, is that the vast majority of Division II student-athletes are not Division I transfers, yet one of our biggest television events of the year probably leaves the public with a different impression. That runs directly to the heart of the Division II identity question."

The matter was referred to the Division II Academic Requirements Committee, which next meets June 9-10.

Insurance

In other business, the presidents kept alive a proposal that would permit institutions to pay for a student-athlete's medical expenses resulting from injury or illness, provided such expenses are necessary for the student-athlete to return to competition. The Division II Management Council earlier had recommended that the Presidents Council not sponsor the proposal, which was developed by an insurance and risk management task force appointed by the Executive Committee (see the April 28 issue of The NCAA News).

The presidents acknowledged the Management Council's position that any institution willing to provide such benefits would have a substantial recruiting advantage over an institution that did not. The Management Council extrapolated that the advantage would be so large that schools would have little choice but to cover such expenses if they were to remain competitive.

The discussion among the presidents was divided, with some expressing the view that institutions might rightfully wish to assist student-athletes with unmet financial needs. Others noted that the legislation could permit schools to provide greater protection for star players while not covering others.

Ultimately, the presidents asked the Management Council to provide additional rationale for having recommended against the proposal. The presidents will reconsider the issue at their August meeting.

In other insurance matters, the Presidents Council supported proposed legislation from the insurance task force to require that an institution certify annually that participants have basic insurance coverage for athletically related injuries. Such coverage may be from self insurance, parents' insurance or institutional insurance. However the Council voted down a proposal developed as part of Division II legislative deregulation. That proposal would have permitted an institution to provide all medical and dental expenses that the institution, at its discretion, determines to be incidental to a student-athlete's participation in intercollegiate athletics. The Presidents Council agreed with the Management Council that the proposal was too open-ended.

Other business

In other business, the Presidents Council:

Chose not to sponsor legislation that would have established an acclimatization period for spring football. The presidents agreed with the Management Council that recent changes to spring football appear to be resulting in fewer injuries. The Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports will be asked to monitor spring football health and safety issues and recommend necessary changes.

Referred back to the Management Council a proposal to deregulate academic and support-service restrictions. The proposal would permit institutions to finance such services that the institution determines to be appropriate and necessary for the academic success of the student-athlete. The presidents were concerned about the potential for abuse with copying, faxing and long-distance expenses.

Discussed the governance-structure review of the American Indian mascot issue. The presidents took no action, although they supported the notion of continuing examination of the issue within the framework of a larger discussion about sportsmanship. The presidents also discussed the balance between permitting institutions the freedom to choose their own mascots vs. how that imagery might be regarded away from home. In that regard, the sense of the meeting was that both institutions and conferences are responsible for ongoing reviews to make certain that mascots are chosen and used in a way that is not hurtful.

Presidents support philosophical changes

The Division II Presidents Council will sponsor legislation at the 2004 Convention to modify the Division II philosophy statement in ways that further emphasize academics and the role and benefit of athletics participation.

The proposed principles state that a member of Division II:

Believes in promoting the academic success of its student-athletes, measured in part by whether an institution's student-athletes graduate at least at the same level as the institution's student body;

Believes that participation in intercollegiate athletics benefits the educational experience of an institution's student-athletes and the entire campus community; and

Believes in preparing student-athletes to be good citizens, leaders and contributors in their communities.

The proposed changes are part of a coordinated effort to update the philosophy statement and the Division II 2004-07 strategic plan to better reflect the guiding principles and philosophy of Division II.

The other principles in the Division II philosophy statement maintain that a member of Division II:

Believes in offering intercollegiate athletics participation to as many of its students as possible, whether or not those students are athletically recruited or financially assisted;

Believes in striving for equitable participation and competitive excellence, encouraging sportsmanship and ethical conduct, and developing positive societal attitudes in all of its athletics endeavors;

Believes in scheduling most its athletics competition with other members of Division II, insofar as regional qualification, geographical location and traditional or conference scheduling patterns permit;

Recognizes the dual objectives in its athletics program of serving both the campus (participants, student body, faculty-staff) and the general public (community, area, state);

Believes in offering opportunity for participation in intercollegiate athletics by awarding athletically related financial aid to its student-athletes; and

Believes that funds supporting athletics should be controlled by the institution and that the emphasis for an athletics department should be to operate within an institutionally approved budget.