Recently, the Division II Championships Committee and Management Council were faced with yet another package of conference regional alignment changes in several sports. These proposed changes have become an annual exercise in Division II. The forecast of this trend continuing is high due to the fluid nature of Division II provisional and reclassifying members right now.

Instead of continuing to modify conference regional alignments every few years as the Division II membership composition changes, the Management Council agreed to freeze current regional alignments for conferences for the next two years and engage in a special study of all Division II regionalization policies to see if changes are necessary (see story in the August 2 issue of The NCAA News). The philosophy of regionalization is an important feature of Division II membership, and Management Council members wonder if some of the policies we have been using the past few years to implement the regionalization philosophy are consistent with its intended purpose.

For example, Division II has a policy to group all schools from the same conference into the same geographic region for a particular sport. This policy requires some schools at the extreme boundary of a conference to drive through two or three non-region states to get into a state for in-region competition. Such a policy seems inconsistent with the budget savings and limited missed class time used to rationalize regionalization.

Another concern expressed about recent realignment decisions involves a perceived motivation by some to balance the strength of conferences in the various regions for a particular sport, instead of focusing solely on the geographic location of member schools. Again, such action seems contrary to the budget savings and limited-missed-class-time rationale behind the regionalization philosophy in Division II.

The Management Council has asked the Division II Championships Committee to appoint a task force to lead the study of the regionalization issues and to recommend changes where needed. While the task force has yet to be officially named, the group's first meeting will be September 12 in Indianapolis. The task force will be led by Management Council Vice-Chair Jill Willson. All recommendations from this group will filter through the Division II Championships Committee to the Management Council, and to the Division II Presidents Council, if necessary.

It is time for Division II to review its current membership profile and geographic trends and study the way regionalization has been implemented in every sport. It is the hope of the Management Council that such a study should occur on a regular basis (once every five years). However, we all hope that the days of regional alignment changes being looked at by sport committees at every spring or summer meeting are over.

We need to take a detailed look at what is best for Division II and our total membership. Strength of competition within a region cannot take precedent over budgetary considerations. Regionalization does not guarantee that the best eight programs in the country will compete for a national championship. Regionalization does guarantee that the different regions of the country will be represented at the championship by each region's best team, and we need policies in place that support such a philosophy.

No system will ever please everyone, but it's become increasingly important for Division II to assess and improve its current course. With the constant flux of membership and sport sponsorship, it is imperative that regionalization be evaluated, not only now, but on a regular basis. Regionalization is an important part of the Division II philosophy statement, and it is important that regionalization work as it was designed.

Sue Willey is the director of athletics at the University of Indianapolis and chair of the Division II Management Council.