The Division II Presidents Council moved forward on academic reform in a controlled way during its August 7 meeting in Indianapolis, agreeing to sponsor legislation for the 2004 Convention that would require student-athletes to pass at least six credit hours the previous term but also advising the Division II Academic Requirements Committee (ARC) that it does not support outright midyear academic certification at this time.

While no vote was taken on the midyear certification issue, the presidents informally provided the ARC with guidance that it solicited. The committee had sensed strong and differing opinions among the membership on whether it should pursue development of a midyear program that not only would require student-athletes to pass a certain number of hours from term to term but also would mandate that they meet grade-point thresholds along the way.

The presidents chose not to recommend midyear academic certification based on two principal factors.

First, they want to determine the effectiveness of changes that have been implemented or proposed to enhance student-athletes' academic success. They also expressed concerns about the toll that a midyear-certification requirement could take on already overburdened Division II administrative staffs.

The presidents also expressed a desire with this and other academic issues to move carefully. That certainly was the sense during a discussion of whether the division should move toward requiring enrolled student-athletes to maintain at least a 2.000 grade-point average at all times to retain athletics eligibility.

Eric Hartung, NCAA assistant director of research, provided the presidents with research on the concept of a 2.000 GPA requirement. Although Division II-specific data are limited at this time (such data eventually will be comparable to Division I), what information is available suggests that a constant 2.000 GPA requirement would have little effect in identifying persisters (that is, student-athletes who persist toward graduation) compared to the current 1.800 GPA that currently is required after the first year. At the same time, such a standard could have a significant disparate effect on black student-athletes.

Specifically, the Division II data showed that the selection effects (how many student-athletes would be negatively affected by a rule change) for black student-athletes for Year 1 would grow from about 27 percent with the current 1.800 standard to about 33 percent with the new. The percentage of false negatives (student-athletes who are predicted not to persist but do) for Blacks would grow from about 6 percent with the current standard to almost 12 percent. The selection effects and the false negatives would increase at much faster rates for black student-athletes than for other groups (see the accompanying charts).

As for the proposal to require six hours of academic credit from the previous term, the presidents agreed that the concept would control cases in which transfer student-athletes have been immediately eligible to compete even though they haven't successfully completed any academic credit in the preceding term. Presidents most in favor of the new standard re-emphasized that they were not targeting Division I transfers per se but rather were attempting to reduce the likelihood that Division I student-athletes transferring with only one year of eligibility remaining are not used for their athletics ability and then cast aside without a degree or the means to acquire one.

Kay Schallenkamp, president of Emporia State University and chair of the Council, said administrators throughout the division should be aware that Division II will not stand for such practices. Given the likelihood that the six-hour rule will pass in January, she said Division II presidents and administrators should be on notice to review their institutional policies and practices regarding transfer student-athletes.

Enforcement presentation

The Presidents Council also heard a presentation from David Price, NCAA vice-president for enforcement, and Chris Stroebel, director of enforcement. Price assured the presidents that the national office's enforcement staff takes its Division II responsibilities seriously and noted that two of the most serious cases of the last five years involved Division II institutions (one of those terminated its NCAA membership before the case reached the Committee on Infractions).

Stroebel, however, noted that the division continues to under-report secondary violations compared to Division I. Since 1997, Division II self-reports have increased only 12 percent, compared to a 40 percent increase in Division I (see "Infractions Awareness" in the September 16, 2002, issue of The NCAA News). Of the Division II secondary infractions that have been reported, 35 percent have pertained to Bylaw 13 (recruiting) while 28 percent have related to Bylaw 14 (eligibility). The total number of Division II self-reports in 2002 was only 253 -- less than one per active member institution. The lack of self-reporting was constant throughout the division with no conference having more than 22 self-reports in 2002. One conference had only one self-reported case.

"It's sometimes a difficult concept to convey," Stroebel said, "but it reflects positively on the institution if it self-reports any violations that it uncovers. It is important to remember that the self-reporting of violations is required by the NCAA Constitution as a key element of institutional control."

Stroebel said there is no "magic number" of secondary violations that an institution should expect to report. The value rests in helping an institution determine if it has ongoing problems in a particular sport or with a particular kind of violation.

"But if an institution is doing no self-reporting at all," Stroebel said, "that might be regarded as evidence that it does not have efficient rules-compliance policies in place." The Division II Committee on Infractions would view serious compliance issues even more unfavorably if they grew worse in a climate of neglect, Stroebel said.

Other highlights

Division II Presidents Council
August 7/Indianapolis

Agreed not to sponsor two pieces of proposed legislation that would have significantly expanded permissible uses of health insurance for Division II student-athletes. The Presidents Council shared the Management Council's concern that the proposals -- one from the Association-wide Risk Management and Insurance Task Force and the other from the Division II Legislation Committee -- were cost-prohibitive and would constitute a recruiting advantage for some institutions if implemented.

Generally supported a legislative proposal that would require institutions to annually certify insurance coverage for participants, but agreed to review in October whether cheerleaders should be included in the group, as is currently stated in the proposal.

Approved a recommendation that protective eyewear in women's lacrosse be required for the 2004 NCAA championships and strongly recommended such eyewear for the 2003-04 regular season. US Lacrosse Federation rules will require the eyewear beginning with the 2004-05 regular season. Division II also approved a proposal to provide interest-free loans (repayable within two years) to any institution needing financial assistance to purchase the eyewear for 2003-04.

Approved the selection of Elwood "Woody" Hahn, commissioner of the Pacific West Conference, as a new member of the Division II Management Council (see related story above).

Agreed to add language to proposed changes to the Division II philosophy statement to state a belief in presidential involvement in athletics on local, conference and national levels.