At the recent NCAA Convention, the principal up-front Division II actions pertained to playing and practice seasons, academic reform and Bylaw 14 deregulation.

But if you were looking for a subplot, one intriguing issue of the day was how the division views institutional rules education and compliance. The primary question was whether the current rules-education and evaluation system is sufficient to assure that the membership is complying with Division II rules.

At the moment, Division II members are required to formally assess their processes once every five years through the Institutional Self-Study Guide (ISSG). Although the areas that must be reviewed through the ISSG represent the core of the Division II Manual (see Constitution 6.3.1), the ISSG does not explicitly require a review of how an institution is educated about and complies with NCAA rules.

A much more on-target device for that purpose is the Compliance Blueprint Program, which has existed since the early part of 2001. It is a voluntary program, and -- by almost all accounts -- an effective one.

The concern, however, is whether the institutions that have used the Compliance Blueprint to this point (see the accompanying list) are the ones most in need of it, a point debated at the October meeting of the Division II Presidents Council. That concern even took on a legislative face at the recent Convention when delegates considered and decisively defeated Proposal No. 9, which would have required every Division II institution to conduct an outside review of its rules-compliance program once every 10 years.

Kay Schallenkamp, president of Emporia State University and incoming chair of the Division II Presidents Council, said that an uncomfortable split may be developing between institutions that have used the program and those that have not.

"There might be a concern of a suspicion by the schools that have gone through the voluntary compliance -- that there might be a reason why some of the schools don't do that (the Compliance Blueprint), particularly since there's no cost to it," she said. "It makes some of the schools a little suspicious."

So, the current state of Division II rules education and compliance is sort of an athletics administration version of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears." Some consider one approach to be too much and the other not enough. One approach presumably is "just right," but there is little or no consensus on what that is.

The problem?

Part of the problem is the perceived nature of Division II non-compliance. Few if any administrators believe that their Division II peers are lavishing massive extra benefits on their student-athletes, but one does hear tales that certain schools are cutting enough corners on recruiting and financial aid regulations to make a competitive difference.

Perhaps the mainstream view is that while the membership tries to follow the rules, it too often falls short because of ignorance.

The question is whether those who don't have a good grasp of the rules actually want to acquire one.

"I don't think it's anything crazy," said Steve Murray, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference, one of the sponsors of Proposal No. 9, "but you hear all the stories about transfer stuff and financial aid. That was the motivation for us sponsoring the legislation, to bring that back to the forefront.

"We've got to quit making rules that worry about 5 percent of the people instead of the 95 percent who do follow the rules. All I was saying is that if we all went through a compliance review or we all had better educational systems in place, maybe the 95 percent of us could make our situations better."

Mike Marcil, commissioner of the North Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and recent Management Council chair, opposed Proposal No. 9 in the belief that forcing an institution to review its compliance program would not assure that it is following the rules.

"It's like driver's education," Marcil said. "Driver's ed gives you an opportunity to know how to drive safely, but if you didn't have traffic officers, it would all be for naught."

In that regard, Marcil believes the division might benefit by figuring out a way to identify and penalize more mid-level violations. Since 1998, only eight cases have been adjudicated by the Division II Committee on Infractions, all of them major. There has been nothing between those cases, some of which have been exceptionally major, and self-reported secondary violations, which are the most minor of infractions (see the September 16 issue of the News).

That gap and other compliance/enforcement issues were discussed at the Convention during a strategic-planning session involving the Division II Management and Presidents Councils. Although the talk was purely conceptual, one possibility that was discussed was revising and simplifying the Division II Manual to the point that almost any user could apply a rule without having to call the NCAA for an interpretation.

While such an initiative would be a legislative Manhattan Project, Marcil said that administrators should embrace ideas that promote self-regulation.

"I think we have a tendency to shift liability," Marcil said of the current approach, which involves a heavy dose of reliance on the interpretive skills of the membership services staff. "People call the NCAA staff and think they no longer have responsibility when in fact the whole theory is based on self-accountability."

Murray, however, is more comfortable with third-party involvement.

"I would be concerned about the decentralization of authority from the NCAA," he said. "I think people do a good job out there making consistent interpretations."

Murray said that the membership in fact may be entering a more restrictive phase, based on how many pieces of permissive legislation were defeated at the recent Convention. No. 27 (complimentary admissions at conference championships), No. 30 (employment of prospects at summer camps or clinics), No. 34 (conference challenge basketball tournaments) and No. 36 (playing and practice seasons) all would have liberalized the rules one way or another. All were defeated.

"I'll bet you can't find in the last six Conventions as many pieces of legislation that were defeated as at this one," Murray said. "Maybe we are saying, 'Maybe we are going too far on issues.' Maybe we're saying, 'There are some things we're not going to allow people to do.' "

Deregulation

All of that may relate somewhat to Division II's legislative deregulation initiative. Not a single proposal put forward as part of deregulation has been defeated in four years as the membership has examined Bylaws 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17. Yet, almost from the outset, there have been whispers that some of the permissive changes provide opportunistic members -- the 5 percent that Murray cited -- with an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage.

"We have heard feedback at deregulation summits," said Mike Kovalchik, athletics director at Hillsdale College and a former member of the Management Council and Legislation Committee. "Some people said there was no problem with deregulation, but others said people would take advantage of it. Overall, I don't think there's been a large abuse of deregulation."

While deregulation has created a number of student-athlete-friendly legislative applications, Marcil does not believe it has created a climate in which the rules can be abused.

"If people take advantage of the compliance tools that are available, that shouldn't be a concern," he said. "I know that the Compliance Assistant software is modified as changes occur.

"With deregulation, sometimes people think that anything goes. But deregulation actually increases the opportunity for compliance. We're not getting rid of the rules that are important. Instead, we're identifying the important rules and getting rid of the others."

Compliance Assistant, developed and distributed by the membership services staff, is in use at 265 Division II member schools and conferences.

Voluntary approach preferred

Ultimately, Schallenkamp believes that the division wants and will support a voluntary approach to rules education and compliance. "As I talked with presidents and ADs at the Convention, the voluntary nature of the compliance issue is something they hold very dear," she said. "We're voluntary in terms of our reporting, in terms of doing the blueprints. Yes, they will agree that something needs to be done, but they don't want to be told."

But, Schallenkamp would not completely rule out the use of an old hammer if the division cannot find a better approach.

In 1996, Division II voted down a proposed athletics certification program, which would have mandated a validated self-study of institutional processes.

Asked if the presidents might consider resurrecting certification if no progress can be made, she said, "I think that's a possibility, although I think the Presidents Council would be hesitant to do that.

"I don't think that the presidents believe that there is a large-scale abuse occurring among Division II programs. The ADs and the coaches want to ensure that the playing field is level, so they're going to be more suspicious.

"They don't know, and they want to know. They want that assurance."

Addressing concerns at another institution

Some suggested guidelines for an institution to use if it suspects another institution is not following the rules:

1. Contact the institution directly and let its administrators know about your concern. Steve Murray, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference, said this approach is especially warranted if the other institution is within the conference. While effective, the technique also can be difficult. "Are we willing to point out someone else's faults thinking that we have our own as well?" he asked. "I think that is a human-nature factor that is tough for all of us."
2. Discuss the concern with your commissioner or the commissioner of the other institution's conference. Mike Kovalchik, athletics director at Hillsdale College, said that while the direct approach is usually best, the involvement of a third party can help. "Maybe your facts are wrong and everybody would end up getting embarrassed," he said. Commissioners, he said, are uniquely positioned to determine the facts and act. If problems are exposed, Kovalchik has faith that they will be addressed. "I can't imagine any school's president who would knowingly permit violations to occur," he said.
3. Call the NCAA enforcement staff and report your concerns.

Compliance Blueprint users

Since January 2000, 28 institutions have had or have requested a compliance review through the Division II Compliance Blueprint Program. The following 23 institutions acknowledged to the Division II Management and Presidents Council that have completed the review or that they have one scheduled: