The Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee is trying to break new ground by creating a Model SAAC Conference Manual for all conference SAACs to follow.

Division II SAAC members saw the document firsthand at their November meeting in Indianapolis.

The manual has been in process for more than a year, and it is something Division II SAAC members have felt is overdue. It will help organize and educate how SAACs should work in the future by looking out for the well-being of student athletes.

To make the first-time endeavor successful, Division II SAAC is looking at how conference committees are run throughout the country. The document has also been distributed to the Division II Management and Presidents Councils.

The document provides mission statements, guiding principles, policies, responsibilities and expectations for all conference SAACs to use as an outline for a successful organization.

"This was something started when many people were coming to the (national) SAAC saying my conference does it this way and another conference does things that way,'' said Division II SAAC Chair Ben Giess. "Sometimes the timelines and different structures had benefits and drawbacks. We tried to pool our resources and decide what things and actions were occurring in the stronger and more effective conference SAACs to give a guide to everyone else.''

For Division II institutions to be an effective part of the strategic plan, recognition of the important role conferences will have in the future is a must. By creating the manual, institutions and conferences in Division II can more clearly see what they have in common with one another.

One way to unify all of Division II is by recognizing the role student-athletes can play in the governance structure. While student-athletes do not have a vote above the Division II commitee level, there is a way for student-athletes to be heard.

"I really believe people listen to us,'' said Giess, a graduate of Indiana University of Pennsylvania. "This is going to be my fourth Convention, and only once I can remember there being an initiative that went opposite of what our point of view was. So I really think people value our opinion. The membership has made that clear by giving us voting positions on the Academic Requirements, Championships and Legislation Committees.''

Legislative review

The SAAC also reviewed the Division II Official Notice during its November meeting, and Proposal No. 28 drew special attention.

This proposal's intent is to reduce the maximum limit on football scholarships from 36 to 24. The rationale would allow for one scholarship to be given for each offensive and defensive position as well as two for special teams.

Giess and his fellow student-athletes are strongly opposed to the proposal.

"It surprised me a little bit,'' he said. "I understand that everyone wants to be competitive and that's what it comes down to. Some schools feel they can't compete with the scholarships the way they are. I wish there were other ways we could go about seeking more ways to create competitive equity without cutting aid that goes to student-athletes.''

The proposal's sponsors noted that during the 2000-01 academic year, 50 percent of the institutions that sponsored football awarded 24 or fewer scholarships to student-athletes.

The Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference and the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference, the sponsors of the proposal, believe it will enhance competitive balance, access to championships and gender equity. The effective date for the proposal is August 1, 2006, to give institutions time to comply with the new equivalency limit.

"As student-athletes, we feel anything that limits the amount of scholarships, or the amount of aid that student-athletes could have, is not in the best interest of our well-being,'' Giess said.

Another proposal that drew attention from the Division II SAAC was No. 19, which calls for institutions to meet minimal requirements for sponsorship of cross country and indoor and outdoor track and field.

Institutions not meeting the minimum contest requirements would not be permitted to send student-athletes to the NCAA championships in those sports.

The Division II SAAC supports the proposal.

"It was something we batted around,'' Giess said. "It was a difficult decision, because it was going to adversely affect some student-athletes but provide more opportunity for others. I feel that by making this rule, it's going to promote more sponsorship of indoor track teams. Therefore it gives more opportunities to a greater variety of athletes.''

The Division II SAAC also instituted a new Rules Education Subcommittee whose mission is to inform student-athlete peers of the regulations that govern their play. The subcommittee is looking at the best ways to send messages concerning gambling, eligibility and amateurism.

"We're exploring the possibility of making a CD-ROM that can be shown during the compliance certifications at the beginning of the year to help educate student-athletes about different SAAC initiatives as well as different bylaws that affect their everyday lives,'' Giess said. "Then they will be more informed and become advocates for themselves.''

The Division II SAAC also re-invested in the Make-A-Wish campaign for 2004-05. It set a goal to raise an additional $10,000 for the charity, following a successful 2003-04 campaign that ultimately raised nearly $50,000.