While the Division II Management Council did not identify any specific solutions to membership-classification issues during its October 18-19 meeting, it did reach one major conclusion: The issue transcends Division II, and the time has arrived to fix the problem.

The classification discussion was set in motion by a review of 2005 Convention Proposal No. 2-25, a proposal from the Pennsylvania State and Rocky Mountain Athletic Conferences to reduce the number of football equivalencies in Division II from 36 to 24. The Management Council voted strongly to oppose the proposal (13-3 among conferences that sponsor football), but the debate was remarkably rancor-free given the depth of feeling that exists on the matter throughout the division.

Instead, the discussion focused on how Division II is being torn by forces that in many cases are beyond its control.

Roger Thomas, director of athletics at the University of North Dakota, was open in opposing the RMAC/PSAC proposal, bluntly saying that such an action could force his institution to reclassify its athletics program at the Division I-AA level.

"I don't want to leave Division II," Thomas said, "but I want to bring back hope that something can be done. I have been in Division II my whole life, and I see this as one of the most serious times ever."

Opponents of the proposal contended that reducing the number of football equivalencies might result in a commensurate 30 percent reduction in squad sizes. They said that such a double cut in financial aid and participation would be inconsistent with the Association's recent "student-athlete-first" position.

However, Joan McDermott, the RMAC's representative, said that the issue could not be viewed that starkly. She said that football institutions in her conference believe that they cannot keep pace with the spending of the larger programs and are feeling increasingly noncompetitive. She said that some institutions have considered reclassifying to Division III or taking other drastic action.

"Our football-playing institutions are so strained financially that some are considering dropping the sport, which becomes a student-athlete issue in its own right," she said.

"However little we may like it," another member said, "the national picture has crept into everyone's life. Some schools feel like they can't get to that level with the number of scholarships they can offer."

Thus, the issue was framed: Division II is in the unappealing position of fighting a two-front war. One front is to retain members who are feeling pressure to follow their rivals to Division I; the other is to retain members who believe that can't afford to keep pace with expenses as they are.

The tone of the discussion was more of concern than anger, but the concern was deep.

"I think we are a great niche in college sports," Thomas said, "but it seems like we're under attack. A few schools believe that Division II is going to hell in a hand basket, that we're going backward, not forward. All of this is the main reason why we're studying regionalization the way we are -- it's because we're running out of schools in the West."

The Council briefly, although not enthusiastically, discussed the concept of subdividing Division II football based on the number of equivalencies a program offers. The feeling was that members likely would find the lower-equivalency subdivision unappealing because, however wrongly, it would be viewed as something less than the other.

Ultimately, the discussion turned to whether the overall question is bigger than Division II. One member questioned whether the Association in general should view football classification differently and give institutions more latitude to align football at scholarship levels of, for example, 80, 60, 40, 20 and zero without requiring them to classify the rest of their programs at a corresponding level.

That idea seemed to have at least some appeal. The problem, of course, is that Division II cannot take that sort of action unilaterally.

Last spring, Division II sought to enlist a membership examination of this issue by asking the NCAA Executive Committee to review the matter. The Executive Committee asked the staff to monitor the situation.

This time, the Management Council took a different approach. Although it did not direct a particular course of action, it authorized a subgroup to meet with related associations and leaders from other divisions to determine what shared interests exist. The Council expects such talks to take place before January so that it can continue discussions at the Convention.

The Council also considered whether the division could benefit from research that would better document why institutions choose to reclassify.

Ultimately, though, the sense was that the number and nature of people involved in the discussion needs to broaden.

"I think there is a growing awareness that this might be viewed more as a football problem than just a Division II matter," said Division II Vice-President Mike Racy. "There's at least some evidence that the health of football in all three divisions is at risk because schools are having trouble finding a suitable level of competition. The Management Council believes that it might help the situation to initiate some dialogue with other associations and groups that have an interest in this matter."

Other membership proposals

While the football equivalency issue generated the most discussion, it was not the only membership proposal to spark Management Council reaction.

The Council also voted to oppose a proposal from the Great Lakes Valley and Northeast-10 Conferences (No. 2-23) that would effectively prevent Division I student-athletes with only one remaining season of eligibility from transferring to Division II institutions.

While the problem of academically unqualified transfer students is legitimate, the Council concluded that it would be wrong to disadvantage student-athletes who are transferring for proper reasons ("There are 10 success stories for every problem," one member said). With that in mind, the Council voted to oppose the proposal but with a commitment to develop an alternative proposal that includes an academic component.

The Council also voted to support a Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic and North Central Conference proposal (No. 2-38) that would fill interim terms for sports committees on a four-year basis. The Division II Nominating Committee opposed the proposal because of how it could disrupt term rotation. However, the Council was persuaded that the current system produces too many inequities by limiting some members to two-year terms while permitting others terms of up to six years.

Other highlights

Division II Management Council
October 18-19/Indianapolis

• Supported an Association-wide proposal from the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports to support new funding to survey the membership about homophobia in intercollegiate athletics.

• Approved the Division II biennial budget, which will include an additional $300,000 for a grant program for minority coaches.

• Approved a Championships Committee recommendation to establish an Appeals Subcommittee for sports committee decisions. The subcommittee will include three members from the Management Council and two from the Championships Committee.

• Elected five new Management Council representatives from the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association, the New York Collegiate Athletic Conference, the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference, the West Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Association and Division II independent institutions. Also, the Council elected a chair to replace Sue Willey of the University of Indianapolis, whose term will expire in January. The elections must be ratified by the Presidents Council.

• Reappointed Donna Fields of St. Mary's University (Texas) to the Management Council.

• Reviewed the progress of the Championships Eligibility Project Team (see related story, page 16). The Council seemed pleased with the progress of the project team, although some members said they are concerned that more needs to be done to help teams that lose contests to institutions using ineligible student-athletes.

• Approved the initial draft of a "Best Hiring Practices" development, as requested by the Division II Project Team to Review Issues Related to Diversity.

• Reviewed research on the roles and tasks of the senior woman administrator.

• Committed $5,000 as a challenge to the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee's 2004-05 fund-raising efforts for the Make-A-Wish Foundation.