The Division II Presidents Council has chosen to let data do the talking by underwriting a major research effort that will study the effects of reclassification on a number of institutions that have moved from Division II to Division I.

The Presidents Council voted October 28 to authorize a comprehensive case study of an undetermined number of institutions that have moved their program within the last several years. In addition, the Council authorized a first-ever Leadership Retreat of Division II chief executive officers to be conducted in summer 2005 to discuss the research and other major issues related to Division II.

The study may be regarded as an extension of the baseline economic study for Division I that was released in August 2003. That study revealed that institutions that commit more funding to their intercollegiate athletics programs do not necessarily gain enrollment, acquire more donations or win more games.

In the case of Division II, the study will focus on whether schools that have reclassified to Division I have realized short-term or long-term increases in enrollment and financial giving as a result of the reclassification. Further, the study will seek to determine, among other things, what effects the changes had on institutional athletics budgets and upon the experience of affected student-athletes (for example, has the competitiveness of women's and men's nonrevenue programs been positively or negatively affected?). The study also could assess what additional costs, such as higher student fees, have accompanied decisions to reclassify to Division I.

Work on the survey instrument will begin immediately. The Presidents Council hopes that preliminary data can be available for discussion at its April 2005 meeting. After the research is complete, the Leadership Retreat would be conducted, probably in June 2005.

The Presidents Council budgeted funds from last year's surplus to cover travel and lodging expenses for all Division II presidents who choose to participate in the event. The date and location of the retreat will be determined and communicated as soon as possible so CEOs will have ample time to schedule the event.

Although the agenda for the Leadership Retreat is far from determined, the Presidents Council appeared to support three big topics: membership stability, diversity of coaches and administrators, and sportsmanship.

"This is a timely opportunity," said George Hagerty, president of Franklin Pierce College and Council chair. "There is a growing sense that we are at a crossroads in Division II. Many of our institutions appear to value the Division II philosophy, but they feel pressured by factors that seem beyond their control."

That is what the research and summit are intended to address. While NCAA institutions will remain free to classify their programs as they see fit, the Division II leadership wants to make certain that CEOs are basing their decisions on the best possible information.

"This is straight out of the NCAA strategic plan," said Division II Vice-President Mike Racy. "Goal No. 3 of the plan talks about the member institutions and conferences having access to data and research that will facilitate the effective governance of intercollegiate athletics. This will be an excellent way to help bring the plan to life in a way that will benefit the membership."

The Presidents Council's decision supported action taken earlier in the month by the Division II Management Council. At its October 18-19 meeting, the Management Council authorized a subgroup to meet with other divisions and related associations to assess football classification issues. One element of that discussion is whether football classification in the NCAA could be separated to some extent from other membership affiliations.

The precipitating factor for all of these discussions is a Convention proposal, No. 2-25, from the Pennsylvania State and Rocky Mountain Athletic Conferences, that would drop the number of financial aid equivalencies in Division II football from 36 to 24.

The Presidents Council followed the lead of the Management Council and voted to oppose the proposal.

Financial aid questions have been constant and prominent in Division II over much of the last decade. Two major studies have sought to determine whether they are at the proper level in various sports. The topic was the subject of a well-attended forum at the 2004 Convention (see the January 19, 2004, issue of The NCAA News).

The anxiety level has grown high enough that institutions on both sides of the PSAC/
RMAC proposal say that the outcome of the Convention vote could affect whether they continue to affiliate with Division II. In particular, some members of the North Central Conference have said they will seek to reclassify to Division I if the legislation passes; smaller programs say they may explore Division III membership or dropping football if it fails.

"I hope this study will elevate the discussion," Hagerty said. "We need to be thinking about what Division II will look like 10 years from now rather than how our membership will feel as soon as the vote is taken on Proposal 2-25.

"The Management Council and the Presidents Council agree that the answer is not to reduce scholarship opportunities for Division II student-athletes, but they also agree that something needs to be done. I believe our mission is to make sure that there is an middle ground between the so-called 'big-time' in Division I and the no-scholarship option provided by Division III. That is an issue that should concern the whole of intercollegiate athletics and not just Division II."

Jim Isch, the NCAA senior vice-president for administrative services who provided primary staff support for the baseline economic study, said that advance thought should be given to how the research will be used.

"How do we deal with the conclusion?" Isch said. "The baseline economic study was the best study to date about intercollegiate athletics financing. The problem is that everybody always sees themselves as the outlier."

Isch and NCAA Managing Director of Research Todd Petr said that the study could draw from existing data, such as what is provided through the federally required Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act. However, Isch said that the bulk of the work will require an interdivisional spirit of cooperation. In that regard, he emphasized that any data collected would be made public only in aggregate form. Confidentiality will be a primary consideration.

In addition to the questions about emigration to Division I, several Presidents Council members wanted similar information for institutions that are considering reclassification to Division III. The presidents agreed to conduct the first study with a Division I focus and then to assess the need to follow up for institutions that are contemplating a move to Division III.

Other business

In addition to agreeing to oppose Proposal No. 2-25, the Presidents Council took positions on other membership-sponsored legislation for the 2005 Convention.

The presidents joined the Management Council in opposing No. 2-23, a proposal from the Great Lakes Valley and Northeast-10 Conferences that would effectively prohibit transfers for student-athletes with only one year of eligibility remaining. The presidents asked the Academic Requirements Committee to expeditiously develop an alternative proposal that would add an academic component, based on Division II data and research, to the one-time transfer legislation.

The presidents took no position on Proposal No. 2-38, a proposal from the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic and North Central Conferences. The proposal, which had been supported by the Management Council, would set all terms for sports committee service at four years, regardless of whether the committee member was filling an unexpired term. Supporters believe the change would address inequities that result from the uneven length of terms; opponents believe that the legislation could disrupt term rotation among sports committees.

Other highlights

Division II Presidents Council
October 28/Indianapolis

• Reviewed a newspaper column from a student journalist who appeared to offer a $200 reward to any football player from his school who would injure the opponent's quarterback enough so that he was unable to compete for the rest of the season. The presidents agreed that such serious breaches of civility should not go unchallenged and agreed that CEOs should take the leadership role in addressing broad issues pertaining to sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is expected to be one of the main topics of discussion at the Division II Leadership Retreat (see related story, page 1) next summer.

• Approved the biennial Division II budgets for 2005-06 and 2006-07. The presidents noted the likely existence of a $3.8 million surplus from 2003-04 and agreed to use the funds in the following ways:

Championships

Increase in funding for championships mementos: $250,000 (all championship participants over a 10-year period).

Assistance for institutions with unfunded championships travel expenses incurred in 2003-04: $50,000.

Division II Sports Festival operations fund: $900,000 ($300,000 each for 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08).

Increase in championships per diem or additional transportation reimbursement funds: $500,000 (beginning 2005-06).

Division II Programs

Increase to Division II Coach Enhancement Grant Program: $200,000 ($20,000 per year over 10 years).

Funds to enhance CEO involvement (financial study, Leadership Retreat): $500,000.

Division II Membership Distribution

Supplemental distribution to every Division II school before the first of the year: $900,000 ($3,000 for each Division II member institution).

Remaining Surplus

$500,000.

• Elected a new chair and new members of the Presidents Council and ratified the election of a new chair and new members to the Division II Management Council (see related stories, pages 16 and 17).

• Agreed to contribute $5,000 to the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee's fund-raising initiative for the Make-A-Wish Foundation (in addition to the $5,000 already pledged by the Management Council) and commended the SAAC for its commitment to Make-A-Wish.

• Approved the Division II Coach Enhancement Grant Program, which will provide funding to Division II institutions to enhance the pool of qualified minority and female coaches.

• Reviewed an initial draft of a "Best Hiring Practices" document. The presidents "enthusiastically accepted" the concept of the document and commended national office intern Kati Huber for her work in that area.

• Agreed to withdraw Proposal No. 2-2 from consideration at the 2005 Convention so that all three divisions will be able to adopt the legislation at the same time. The proposal would require member institutions to require all members, as a condition of membership, to be subject to mandatory binding arbitration of claims arising under federal and state law against the NCAA. Division II now most likely will consider the proposal at the 2006 Convention.