The Division II Championships Committee signed off during its January 25-27 meeting on the recommendations of the Division II Regionalization Task Force and the Championships Eligibility Project Team.

The fact that there is a recommendation from the Regionalization Task Force is news in itself. The group, which was formed at the summer meeting of the Division II Management Council, had struggled to find a model that would make Division II regionalization consistent from sport to sport and stable from year to year.

"Most of us in Division II know that we need to address a number of problems relating to regionalization," said Championships Committee Chair Jill Willson, who also chaired the task force. "But until you are charged with finding a solution, I don't know that anybody can fully appreciate how complicated it is."

The full proposal will go to the Management Council for consideration at its April meeting.

The plan would divide the nation into eight regions, with all members of every conference being in the same region. All but 26 of the 274 schools that are affiliated with conferences fit within one of the eight proposed regions, and all but two of those 26 are in a state that borders the proposed region.

The proposal generally would level out the number of teams in each region. The Division II Women's Volleyball Committee cited regional imbalance as a concern at the outset of the regionalization study, noting that one women's volleyball region had 40 teams while another had only 19.

If approved, the proposal would eliminate the current practice in which some institutions "pass over" a nearby in-state institution to schedule an in-region game.

The task force acknowledges that some regions will be stronger than others competitively under its proposal, but Willson said she believes that is an acceptable outcome if Division II truly believes in a philosophy that supports regional competition.

"If we start worrying about which region is competitively strong at any particular moment, that just takes us right back down the same path," said Willson, director of athletics at Texas A&M University-Kingsville. "The fact is that we've gotten ourselves in trouble by forgetting that we're supposed to be about competing with nearby schools.

"This approach will reduce travel, which would be fiscally responsible, in addition to reducing the amount of missed class time for our student-athletes."

If the Management Council supports the proposal, the project team recommends that it be implemented over three years. In 2005-06, sports committees would use a new strength-of-schedule index for team championships that would use a true strength-of-schedule calculation (average of opponents' win-loss records). In 2006-07, sports committees would be required to use Factor Nos. 1 and 2 of the Rating Percentage Index (win-loss records and the new system for strength of schedule). In 2007-08, the committees would use the RPI along with the new regionalization plan.

For such a schedule to work, final approval would be needed by June. The change would not require new legislation.

Championships eligibility

The Championships Committee continued to support the recommendations of the Championships Eligibility Project Team, which is charged with reducing the possibility that ineligible student-athletes will compete in Division II championships.

The committee noted that the project team's presentation at the January Convention was well-attended and that no major concerns about the proposed approach were voiced at the time (see the January 17 issue of The NCAA News).

The project team's next meeting will be March 30 in Indianapolis.

Answers to selected questions in a membership survey about championships eligibility accompany this story.

Other issues

In other business, the Championships Committee advanced a recommendation about a fall championships festival for 2006 to the Management Council for consideration at its April meeting. If the Management Council approves a fall 2006 festival, that would mean that Division II would have championships festivals in place for fall 2006 and spring 2008. The committee also continues to consider the possibility of a winter festival that would occur no earlier than 2009.

The committee also discussed possible actions that could have budgetary ramifications. In particular, it talked about the possibility of covering travel for preliminary rounds for individual-team championships. It also discussed the viability of permitting student-athletes who have been eliminated from a championship to remain at the championship site to watch teammates who continue to compete. No action was taken on either proposal.

Membership Survey

Responses to a survey conducted by the Division II Championships Eligibility Project Team to determine membership acceptance or resistance to new concepts to lessen the use of ineligible student-athletes in championship competition:

1. Is an institutional fine an appropriate consequence for playing an ineligible student-athlete during intercollegiate competition?

Very appropriate -- 25.0%

Appropriate -- 40.3%

Not sure -- 19.4%

Inappropriate -- 11.1%

Very inappropriate -- 3.5%

2. The project team has explored a fine structure based on $250 per ineligible student-athlete, per incident, up to a maximum of $2,500. For example, if an ineligible student-athlete competed in 10 contests, the total fine would be $2,500, which would be the maximum allowable fine. In principle, is this appropriate?

Very appropriate -- 26.0%

Appropriate -- 44.7%

Not sure -- 22.8%

Inappropriate -- 5.7%

Very inappropriate -- 0.8%

3. Is the nullification of contest(s) for championship selection purposes an appropriate consequence for playing an ineligible student-athlete during intercollegiate competition?

Very appropriate -- 48.6%

Appropriate -- 43.1%

Not sure -- 5.6%

Inappropriate -- 1.4%

Very inappropriate -- 0%

The nullification penalty should be applied to Yes No Not sure

all contests during which the ineligible 80.1% 11.4% 7.1%

student-athlete competed: