In his "State of the Association" speech at the NCAA Convention, NCAA President Myles Brand stressed a recommitment to the "collegiate model" of athletics that is education-based. I fully support this vision as the Association's guide for the future. However, I believe that a key to realizing this vision is for Divisions I and III to help in the development of new incentives for membership in Division II.

Fundamental to higher education in the United States are the diverse missions of our many colleges and universities. This diversity cannot be matched anywhere else in the world. There truly is an educational mission for every person who wants to attend college.

On one end of the range of the educational missions are the outstanding large national universities with many thousands of undergraduate students and extensive doctoral and research programs. On the other end of the "mission range" are the outstanding smaller liberal arts colleges.

But the largest part of the mission range, the center of the bell-shaped curve, includes the country's outstanding comprehensive colleges and universities. Every day, these colleges and universities provide excellent undergraduate programs and a significant number of master's, doctoral and research programs for millions of students at the local, state and regional levels.

NCAA Division II has a philosophy of geographic regionalization and limited athletics grant-in-aid maximums. This would seem to be a philosophical and financial match with the largest group of colleges and universities, those in the center of the mission range. However, at present, NCAA Division III includes 425 member institutions, Division I includes 326 member institutions and Division II includes only 281 member institutions.

Rather than being organized in a manner that is consistent with the bell-shaped curve of our educational missions, the divisional membership of the NCAA is aligned like a barbell that is strained to the breaking point. It is apparent that there are a growing number of philosophical and financial differences among institutions in Divisions I and III. At the same time, after a decade of growth, Division II membership is now on the decline. With as many as 20 Division II institutions either currently in the process of reclassifying to Division I or considering it, Division II's model of geographic regionalization is being threatened.

As I write this, I realize there is an elephant in the room that is difficult to ignore. Historically, an overwhelming incentive for institutions seeking membership in Division I has been the quest to qualify for the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship and the related television exposure and financial returns. However, the Division I Men's Basketball Championship has been a tremendous benefit for the entire Association and I will just leave that elephant alone.

But there are some actions that Divisions I, II and III could take together immediately that would not only have a positive impact on retention of current Division II member institutions, but also would encourage current members of Divisions I and III to reclassify to Division II.

Rename the division. The numeral II clearly connotes a second-rate or inferior product, yet many Division II institutions are very successful at integrating athletics with their educational missions. Those institutions, and others that could reclassify to Division II, should not be subjected to the constant negative qualitative judgments of the public and media based completely on the numeral II.

Establish some type of national television coverage plan for Division II. Although Division II institutions do focus their educational and athletics efforts primarily at the local, state and regional level, the quality and quantity of the students attending those institutions clearly has a profound positive impact at the national level. Occasional national telecasts of Division II games of the week or even the scrolling of Division II scores during televised Division I contests would greatly enhance Division II membership.

Move toward football alliances. Using a "current athletics grant maximums plus one" concept, there could be five alliances for NCAA football.

Division I-A -- maximum of 85 athletics grants.

"Freedom" Alliance -- maximum of 63 athletics grants.

"Independence" Alliance -- maximum of 36 athletics grants.

"Liberty" Alliance -- 0 athletics grants.

Division III -- 0 athletics grants.

Provide outstanding postseason championships for all of the alliances. Permit Divisions I and II institutions to choose competition in either the Freedom, Independence or Liberty alliances without having to reclassify their entire athletics program to another division.

Establish an NCAA athletics program ranking system (for example, US News college rankings). Rankings would be based on overall scores for meeting academic, student-athlete-welfare, equity, diversity, rules compliance, financial, facility and competitive standards consistent with the institutional mission. High rankings in all three divisions would publicly reward institutions that have already classified their athletics programs in the division that best suits their educational missions. Institutions could use the rankings to determine if their mission is more consistent with schools in another division.

Actions such as these would affect the entire Association and could be accomplished only with the support of all three divisions. However, there is precedent for Division II receiving assistance from other divisions on membership issues. In the late 1980s, recognizing the importance of incentives for Division II membership, Division I established the Division II basketball enhancement fund.

Now, with President Brand's leadership, we are about to implement the Association's new strategic plan. This is the ideal time for all three divisions and the national office staff to work together in taking more actions that will enhance membership in Division II. By re-establishing the correlation between NCAA divisional membership and the educational missions of the member institutions, all of us will have a more successful journey back to the collegiate model.

Michael J. Marcil is the commissioner of the North Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference.