The April meeting of the Division II Management Council was less about the present and more about the future.

Rather than focusing exclusively on developing or advancing legislation, the Council instead broke into three round-table discussions to examine issues that could have long-term ramifications for the division and even the Association in general.

The Council, which met April 19-20 in Indianapolis, appeared to appreciate the opportunity to back away from outright policy-making to take instead more of a freestyle look at three major issues: Division II membership stability, financial aid equivalencies and Division II transfer requirements.

Membership stability

The examination of Division II membership stability was prompted by the Division I Management Council's April 19 approval of Proposal No. 2003-13, which significantly softened championship-eligibility standards for institutions transferring to Division I.

Management Council members who examined the issue were concerned about whether the overall Association has become too benign about membership-classification issues. While abundant attention has been focused on how membership requirements affect each division internally (and even subdivisions in the case of Division I), there has been much less examination of how one division is affected by the actions of another.

To illustrate the point, Division II Vice-President Mike Racy noted that when Division I relaxed its membership requirements in the 1990s, a large number of institutions took advantage of what they saw as a "window of opportunity" to go to Division I. After the spike of new members, Division I promptly re-established stricter requirements, which have been in place to this point. In the meantime, there has been a continuing migration of Division II members to Division I, albeit at a slower rate.

"Division II is the only division that is losing members," said one participant. "Is there a threshold at which we are dealing with a domino effect? We have a division philosophy that is based on regionalization, but we have so few schools in the West that it is becoming very difficult for our members to put together a football schedule."

That pressure, along with the perceived cachet that comes from Division I membership, may be creating a dynamic that puts at risk the traditional classification choices available to NCAA member institutions. As if that isn't enough, some Division II members claim to be sufficiently pressured financially that they may explore Division III membership to avoid expenses relating to athletically related financial aid.

While it all sounds dire, there was a sense that Division II is not without long-term weapons of its own. For starters, the Management Council concluded that Division II provides student-athletes with a balance of competitive, academic and social experiences that represent "the collegiate model of athletics"; given enough time, membership may flow back to Division II based on the appeal of that philosophy. The group also believed that Division II potentially could benefit from shifting market trends as consumers increasingly long for locally oriented entertainment to which they can relate.

As for the short term, the Management Council approved the following:

Formation of a Management Council subcommittee to coordinate Division II identity initiatives.

A recommendation that the national office provide public relations services on a division-specific basis, as appropriate.

A recommendation that the Executive Committee establish a subcommittee to examine membership issues and how they relate to the overall health of the Association.

NCAA President Myles Brand acknowledged the Management Council's concerns and said he believes a number of institutions are making ill-advised moves to Division I.

"Some institutions have a false hope that a move to Division I will solve their problems," he said. "I have suggested that they rethink that belief. The benefits are not there. They are pushed by forces outside the campus.

"I know one athletics director who doesn't want to move his program, but he is pressured by those in his community who do. We need to do more than repair work. We need to advise these communities about the advantages of Division II."

Brand said that the the next round of NCAA reform will focus on fiscal matters, which should work to the advantage of Division II. "Division II has a number of built-in self-restraint factors," Brand told the Management Council. "If you look at the advantages of Division II, you have to look at financial issues."

Brand also said that Division II should take advantage of its willingness to innovate.

"The sports festival (May 11-16 in Orlando, Florida) is a statement about what you're trying to accomplish," he said. "It's a real opportunity to begin to make a statement. It provides a foot in the door to a larger concept. It's an opportunity for student-athletes to come together and for Division II to project a positive image through the festival."

Financial aid

The discussion on financial aid equivalencies was punctuated by the Management Council's approval of a Division II Legislation Committee recommendation not to change Division II equivalency limits at this time.

The unanimous vote appeared to close the door on a 2003 Convention resolution that mandated a division-wide review of the issue. Legislation Committee Chair Paul Engelmann, faculty athletics representative at Central Missouri State University, said that although the committee compiled extensive data on the subject, none of the information pointed to obviously needed changes.

Moreover, the Management Council appeared generally to believe that reducing aid limits would be inconsistent with the "student-athlete-first" principle -- that cutting back on money that supports education should be the last option considered. Instead, those endorsing the status quo said financial challenges could better be addressed by looking at other ways to save money (for example, length of seasons, size of coaching staffs, more conservative approaches to facilities).

As for gender-equity concerns, the sentiment was that current opportunities should be fully funded before aid limits in women's sports are increased or aid limits in men's sports reduced.

The Management Council noted that its acceptance of the Legislation Committee's recommendation not to change equivalency limits will not preclude the membership itself from proposing changes to financial aid legislation.

Transfer legislation

The discussion about the one-time transfer exception focused on how the division can do a better job of screening those with legitimate reasons for transferring to Division II schools from those without such reasons.

Ultimately, the Management Council appeared to favor a model that would enhance the application of the current rule, which requires that a student-athlete transferring from another four-year institution must have been eligible to compete when he or she left the originating institution.

The discussion revealed that the problem has less to do with the current rule than it does with when the inquiry about eligibility is made. For example, if a compliance officer inquires in March whether the potential transfer was eligible in his or her last semester, the question yields information only about the fall. While the athlete may have been eligible at that time, it also is possible that he or she may have underachieved in the spring.

With that in mind, the Council appeared interested in mandating a follow-up inquiry to make certain that potential transfer student-athletes have continued to make academic progress up to the time of the transfer.

The Council considered the advisability of requiring an average of 12 hours of transferrable degree credit per semester for four-year transfers, as is currently required of two-year transfers. However, the group backed away from that idea, principally because it could create an environment that would encourage Division I student-athletes to transfer because they did not meet the requirements of Division I's new progress-toward-degree requirements.

The Council also seemed to agree that conference offices should play a greater role in demanding documentation from their member schools about transfer students.

Other business

In other business, the Management Council acted on several proposals involving drug testing.

Most significantly for the division, the Council agreed to pilot expanding year-round drug testing to all sports, starting August 1. The proposal, recommended by the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports, is designed to create a greater deterrent for student-athletes at institutions that do not sponsor football, which currently is the only Division II sport tested on a year-round basis. The plan, which will have an initial budget effect of about $100,000, will:

Maintain the football-testing guarantee for Division II football.

Reduce football tests from 14 per site to 12.

Reallocate two football tests, add two new tests and use those to test four student-athletes in one or more additional high-risk sports.

Visit 66 (about 60 percent) of the non-football campuses at least once each year and test four athletes from one high-risk sport.

The Council also agreed to sponsor 2005 Convention legislation to amend Bylaw 18.4.1.5.1 to allow the Association to reduce a drug-testing penalty during a drug-test appeal from one year to the next 50 percent of a season of competition in all sports (effective August 1, 2005) and to approve a change to Bylaw 31.2.3.1.2 so that the NCAA honors drug-testing suspensions from national or international governing bodies that have adopted the World Anti-Doping Agency Code.

Other highlights

Division II Management Council
April 19-20/Indianapolis

Approved a proposal from the Division II Academic Requirements Committee to sponsor 2005 Convention legislation to permit student-athletes who have not participated in countable athletically related activities for a consecutive two-year period to be immediately eligible.

Agreed to establish a $300,000 reserve fund for the current fiscal year for the 2004 Division II National Championships Festival and to allocate $25,000 to fund championships technology initiatives during the 2004-05 fiscal year.

Approved a Championships Committee recommendation that member institutions must meet the minimum contest and participation requirements for cross country, indoor track and field, and outdoor track and field to be eligible to compete in championships in those sports.

Approved a Championships Committee recommendation to require that institutions reclassifying to Division II and Division II institutions reclassifying to Division III will count as Division II members in order to meet the minimum number of Division II contests for selections. Some members of the Management Council expressed a desire for consistency between the newly adopted policy and policies governing provisional members and strength-of-schedule formulas.

Reviewed the progress of the Championships Eligibility Project Team.

Elected a new vice-chair to replace Joan McDermott, athletics director at Metropolitan State College of Denver, effective September 1, 2004. The vice-chair's election will be ratified at the April 29 meeting of the Division II Presidents Council.

Noted that the following institutions and conferences had been selected as winners of Division II Strategic Alliance Matching Grants for the 2004-05 academic year: Carolinas-Virginia Athletics Conference; Metro State; the University of Minnesota, Crookston; Philadelphia University; and Shaw University.

Received a report on secondary violations reported for 2003. In all, 2,610 secondary violations were reported last year -- 2,121 in Division I, 329 in Division II and 160 in Division III. Most Division II secondary violations involved football and basketball and pertained to Bylaws 13 and 14.

Agreed to sponsor legislation for the 2005 Convention to require NCAA members, as a condition of membership, to be subject to mandatory binding arbitration of claims arising under federal law against the NCAA, its officers, employees and agents. The proposal also would require all member conferences and affiliated members to be subject to mandatory binding arbitration under state law.

Council members go to bat for service

Most members of the Division II Management Council stepped up to the plate, somewhat literally, to support the division's campaign for the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

Management Council members and Division II staff members staffed a concession stand at an April 18 minor-league baseball game between the Indianapolis Indians and the Richmond Braves. The Indians donated a portion of the proceeds, $579, to Make-A-Wish.

"I thank those Management Council members who showed up early to participate in this event," said Sue Willey, Council chair and director of athletics at the University of Indianapolis. "We ask so much of our student-athletes, so I believe it's important for the administrators to do their part."

The Division II arrangement with Make-A-Wish was developed by the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, which has overseen a number of fund-raising activities across the nation over the 2003-04 academic year. The Division II SAAC is expected to present its check to Make-A-Wish at the Division II National Championships Festival in Orlando next month.