DALLAS -- From meeting to meeting at the 2005 NCAA Convention, it might have been difficult to identify the common theme for Division II. But after the final gavel fell January 10, the division had committed itself to several courses of action designed to add value to Division II membership and to slow or halt excessive membership migration to Division I.

The membership endorsed further study of a proposal to restructure football throughout the Association, provided input on a study that will focus on why institutions move to Division I, set the date for a summit of chief executive officers to discuss the future of the division and approved an expenditure of up to $500,000 to produce selected Division II championship events for television.

Both the Management and Presidents Councils endorsed further examination about the advisability of separating football classification from over-
all membership classification. Both groups reacted to a proposal developed by University of North Dakota Athletics Director Roger Thomas, who provided a rationale supporting a number of Association-wide football "alliances" whose membership would be determined by the number of grants-in-aid the football programs provide rather than by an institution's overall division classification.

While the Management and Presidents Councils both supported further study, they emphasized that any discussion about possible grant-in-aid break points was premature.

The proposal would have no direct effect on Division I-A, which would continue to be the province of the largest programs, or Division III, which would continue to be the home of Division III's brand of nonscholarship competition. It would have more direct ramifications for Division I-AA and all of Division II.

In short, the concept would create a floor on the number of grants for each of the alliances. At the moment, each classification -- I-A, I-AA, II and III -- is defined principally by the ceiling on the number of grants it provides. Both Divisions I-AA and II have limited numbers of fully funded programs and rather large subsets of low or nonscholarship programs. The plan would provide the means by which like-sized programs could compete against one another, thus enhancing competitive equity and possibly eliminating one of the main motivations for institutions to reclassify from Division II to Division I.

"I think it's healthy to take a look at other alternatives to the problems that are perceived -- particularly in football -- at the present time," said Division II Presidents Council Chair George Hagerty of Franklin Pierce College.

NCAA President Myles Brand also endorsed further examination of the concept.

"Getting the numbers right will be hard, and getting people to reconceptualize will be difficult," Brand said. "But I applaud Division II for getting the discussion started."

Members of both the Division II Management and Presidents Councils noted the effect that the proposal would have on current conferences, a number of which have football programs with widely varying grant-in-aid limitations. Other potential barriers that were identified were how discounting on financial aid would affect the concept and how Division I's governance structure, which is based on football sponsorship, would be affected. Also, Divisions I and II count financial aid differently.

Yet, both the Management and Presidents Councils unanimously endorsed further study of the concept because of their concerns about the overall health of football and also because of Division II's problem with membership attrition.

Financial study

The attrition issue will be the central focus of a study being developed to analyze Division II finances and to determine whether institutions that have moved from Division II to I have met their expectations.

The study is regarded as a key means of addressing what Brand terms "mission creep."

"We need to continue to educate our membership about what division distinction means, especially trustee groups," Brand said. The Presidents Council agreed with that assessment, noting that decisions to reclassify often have been made by new presidents or as a result of promises made during the presidential interview processes. The Council recommended that the study be made available to boards of trustees at Division II institutions after it is completed.

The study, to be conducted by Sebago Associates, will compare Division II and I-AA expense data, analyze data for schools that have reclassified from Division II to I and include a case study of selected schools to analyze why institutions moved and whether those reasons were subsequently validated.

A report provided to the Management and Presidents Councils noted that at least 49 institutions have reclassified from Division II to Division I since 1985.

Jonathan Orszag of Sebago, who with his brother Peter and Robert Litan conducted a major economic baseline study for Division I in 2003, said that the amount of retroactive data for that entire group is limited, precluding much examination of institutions reclassifying before the mid-1990s. However, Orszag said his firm will be able to analyze about 20 schools, with a case study being made of five or six institutions.

The study design will be finalized within a month, with preliminary findings being made available to the Division II Presidents Council in April. The preliminary report will be provided by June 1, with the final document serving as the centerpiece for discussion at the Division II CEO Leadership Summit in Orlando June 24-26.

Invitations to that event will be mailed later this month to each Division II chief executive officer.

The case studies will be the biggest challenge since they will require institutions to provide information voluntarily. Some Presidents Council members inquired about whether the identity of the institutions involved in the case studies could be made known to enhance the credibility of the examination, but the consensus was that few institutions would provide accurate data without an assurance of confidentiality.

With that in mind, Herb Reinhard, chair of the Division II Membership Committee and director of athletics at Valdosta State University, said that the Division II membership should solicit as much cooperation as possible.

"I encourage the study," Reinhard said, "and I encourage our peers to cooperate. We all need to help the study to be as accurate as it can possibly be."

Television enhancement

The other significant action involved approval of up to $500,000 to produce telecasts of selected championships events that would be made available to cable networks that are committed exclusively to intercollegiate athletics programming. The funding represents the last part of a $3.8 million surplus from the 2003-04 fiscal year. Previously, $3.3 million of that surplus had been devoted to championships initiatives and to the CEO Summit.

Currently, CBS televises the Division II Men's Basketball Championship game while ESPN carries the Division I Women's Basketball Championship game and the Division II Football Championship game.

The proposal will enable Division II to make nine additional telecasts available. In authorizing the expenditure, the Presidents Council identified those contests as the men's and women's basketball semifinals (four games), the baseball championship game, the softball championship game, the women's volleyball championship game and the football semifinal games.

The NCAA broadcast services staff said the bids for the work were competitive and that there is strong interest on behalf of the networks to clear the broadcasts for regional or national telecasts. The telecasts also most likely would be made available for over-the-air transmission in local markets.

The plan is separate from a Division II conference commissioner initiative that hopes to syndicate a Division II television "magazine" program weekly.