After a five-year break, the question of financial aid limits has returned to Division II.

The issue made its last appearance at the 1998 Convention when delegates defeated Proposal No. 6, which would have lowered the number of scholarship equivalencies in Division II football from 36 to 30. The intent was to reallocate some of the money spent on football scholarships in a way that enhanced gender equity.

This time, the topic is back courtesy of two sources -- an Association-wide request from the Committee on Women's Athletics for each division to study financial aid limits and a mandate issued through Division II Proposal No. 39 at the 2003 Convention. That resolution directed the Management Council to review aid limits in all sports and "to adjust, if necessary, financial aid limits in specific sports to better reflect the Division II membership and its philosophy."

Although the resolution is directed at all sports, history suggests that the examination will focus on football. Since the 1970s, the scholarship limit in Division II football has dropped from 60 to 45 to 40 to 36. During the same period, the limits for every other Division II team sport have remained the same, except for a small cut in basketball and a 10 percent reduction that was applied to every Division II sport at the 1992 Convention.

On the surface, the issue might appear to have competitive overtones: An institution that offers 36 football scholarships seemingly is going to have a better team than one that offers 30; if the number were lowered to 30, more teams would be competitive.

However, both supporters and opponents of lower aid limits say that the issue is more complicated than that.

"It's a competitive issue that is reflective of a fiscal issue," said Barry Blizzard, commissioner of the West Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Conference. "In an ideal world, if there was an unlimited amount of money, we wouldn't be looking at this because everybody would be competitive. But because there isn't an unlimited amount of money, especially in Division II, then it becomes a competitive issue."

Mike Lockrem, commissioner of the Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference, endorses the review but believes the membership should not think of scholarship reductions as a way to equalize competition.

"I think that's the wrong approach," he said. "I hope the research establishes where the Association sits with its numbers. If the numbers show we should be someplace else, then that's a serious conversation we need to have."

While the conversation would be serious, it also might be difficult. The 1998 debate over Proposal No. 6 generated 22 visits to the Convention microphone. Most of the talking was done, often forcefully, by those who wanted to keep the football scholarship allocation at 36.

Economic impact

But circumstances are different now in two important ways. While Division II programs were not awash in money even in the roaring '90s, many now are much worse off economically as endowments have shrunk, investments have collapsed and state budgets have imploded.

Besides all of that, Division II deregulated its financial aid legislation in 2002. Some funding that previously applied to grants-in-aid no longer does, raising questions about whether those actions may have altered what the limits should be.

Steve Murray, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference (a co-sponsor of Proposal No. 39), said those reasons and other recent legislation support a new study.

"Two years ago we passed the legislation that literally rewrote financial aid, and we just passed a piece of legislation that says state grants aren't included," he said. "When the change occurred, we saw a considerable drop in total equivalencies in our conference. It went down 10 to 15 percent across the board. For a conference that has to raise every dollar of scholarship money itself, in tough economic times and very rural places, I'm saying my schools couldn't make up for that change in the equivalency.

"A bigger school in a different state maybe was able to make up that cash difference. I just think there was more of a separation (at that time). It's my hope that we can look at all of the figures, see what's going on in the division, and if the equivalencies should be adjusted to be more reflective of what's going on in Division II, then it should be."

Although Murray knows that people believe his proposal is all about football, he said that isn't the case.

"I understand what people think," he said, "but I would not have agreed to any piece of legislation that would have singled out a sport."

In fact, Murray believes that the examination could demonstrate that most schools give much less than the maximum limits in various nonrevenue sports, which might justify lower limits.

And that, of course, is where the discussion gets sticky. The study, almost by definition, is not just a review of financial aid limits; it is more of a study of where limits can be lowered. Such an examination sets the stage for friction between the so-called "haves" and "have-nots" and raises the larger question of what Division II stands for.

"Division II right now is so proud of the balance between academics and athletics," said Roger Thomas, athletics director at the University of North Dakota, which is widely regarded as one of the primary "haves." "We're trying to do that and still put out a good product that people will want to come and see. To me, the scholarship thing, it's kind of like an investment that pays us back dividends if we recruit the right kind of kids and get them to graduate. If we diminish that, it just diminishes the whole thing."

But Blizzard emphasized that the division should not ignore that times have changed for the worse.

"The support structure for intercollegiate athletics, especially in Division II, has changed quite a bit over the years as far as public funding for our public institutions and outside funding for our private schools and outside funding for both," Blizzard said. "We're feeling that very much here in the state of West Virginia, especially our state institutions."

Question of reallocation

Indeed, the purpose of the examination is critical. Is it to diminish expenses? Is it to create greater competitive parity? Is it to create an opportunity to reallocate funds in a way that aids gender equity?

While the Committee on Women's Athletics is focused on the last one, nothing about gender-equity goals appeared in 2003 Proposal No. 39.

As for competitive parity, Thomas said that the question isn't as easy as it seems. He said that North Dakota, because of its extremely remote nature, needs the 36 grants more than do programs that are located in more densely populated football hotbeds.

"Scholarships in this area of the country are critical moreso than recruiting because we're so sparsely populated," he said. "The population of our state is diminishing, our high-school graduate numbers are declining, and we've got to go further to find talent to convince those kids to attend our school and to play. And you have to help them. That's why the scholarship piece is a real life-blood for the schools that are out here in the tundra."

If the aid limits were cut, what would the likely outcome be for those institutions that currently offer 36 grants?

Tom Brown, commissioner of the Great Lake Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, believes that most institutions would not reallocate funding from reduced grant-in-aid limits to benefit other programs.

"I think it goes away," he said. "There are only two things that make expenses go away, and that's people and programs. We just had Hillsdale in our conference drop four sports. So, you've got coaches and expenses connected with them that will go away. And I don't think that money is going to go anyplace else. That money is just going to be scooped up, and that's an expense coming out of the budget."

Others, however, do believe that the funding likely would be reallocated, although perhaps in a way that might exacerbate competitive inequities within the division.

"I could take those six scholarships (if the limit was cut from 36 to 30), anywhere from $60,000 to $75,000, and I could put them into upgrades for the football program," said Jerry Hughes, athletics director at Central Missouri State University. "I don't think it affects what kids you get. It just affects the amount of money each kids gets so that the parents end up paying more."

Thomas said that North Dakota likely would reallocate the money as well, possibly using it for scholarships for the school's nascent Division I women's ice hockey program.

To that, however, Thomas added a note that confirms the importance of the issue.

"We're building a women's ice hockey program at the Division I level, and we're building scholarships there, so we might reallocate the funds there," he said. "But it also might tip the balance because we're surrounded by the schools that are looking at Division I-AA football. And that's one of their big complaints, that this type of philosophy in Division II causes them to look at something that's more competitive. In their eyes, (Division II) is sliding more to the Division III, NAIA nonscholarship type of thing."

Division II members North Dakota State and South Dakota State Universities have said they will join I-AA, along with the University of Northern Colorado.

Many in Division II would say those schools are going exactly where they belong -- that their programs are vastly oversized compared to the rank-and-file of the division.

But one administrator said that while the division does risk losing its bigger members through scholarship cuts, the larger risk lies elsewhere.

"Our big competitor is not I-AA, as a lot of them talk about," he said. "It's Division III because the meter keeps running in Division III with institutional aid. Once we hit our maximum that we can offer, that's it. In Division III, it's all institutional aid. There are no limitations. They could have football players who are getting institutional aid that if you totaled it all up would far exceed 36 grants."

More alternatives

Since the division is in a mood to study, Thomas suggested that it put different alternatives on the table.

"I would hope someday that there might be more freedom for people to choose levels," he said, referring to a high-scholarship/low-scholarship football classification split. "I know the NCAA doesn't want to go out and create a bunch of new levels -- there's already a bunch -- but we should see if we're meeting the needs of the schools.

"It's certainly happened before when we created levels in the first place. If we're reviewing scholarships, I don't think it's out of the question to look at all of the angles."

Hughes would second that. He would like to see grant limits in men's and women's basketball increased by one.

All of that tends to lead to the conclusion that the aid-limit study is a good idea, even if there is next to no consensus at the moment.

Lockrem's conference voted for the study even though it has no predetermined position on reducing football scholarships. He believes administrators should put aside short-term issues and look far into the future, especially when it comes to divisional classification.

"Administrators should have a long-term vision of what they really want their institution to be," he said. "With North Dakota State, they went through this athletically and also academically and they thought that being a Division I institution would fit more in their vision of what they want to be 50 years from now.

"And I think that's really the burning question: 'What do you want to be 50 years from now?' "

As Division II institutions consider that long-term question, it's a safe bet that they will have a few more financial aid studies to guide them along the way.