DALLAS -- After several months of anticipation and discussion, Division II finally acted on a proposal to reduce football financial aid equivalencies, defeating Proposal No. 28 by a two-to-one margin January 10.

At the conclusion of the 99th NCAA Convention, however, it appeared that the vote did not mark the end of the issue.

Both the supporters and opponents of No. 28 appeared committed to finding ways to more effectively match fiscal realities with competitive desires in football. The Division II Management and Presidents Councils, both of which opposed No. 28, endorsed study of a model that would separate football classification from overall membership classification (see story, page A1) while the proposal's supporters appeared committed to maintaining a focus on fiscal issues.

The Convention debate on the proposal was candid and extended, especially compared to the brief legislative debates of recent Conventions. Discussion lasted about 45 minutes, believed to be the longest for any Division II proposal since the Association federated in 1997. Steve Murray, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference (one of the two sponsoring conferences), applauded that intensity during the debate.

"There's no doubt that decreasing the equivalencies from 36 to 24 seems like a hard pill to swallow," Murray said. "But would we have had all of this attention on this issue otherwise?"

Proposal No. 28 certainly did attract attention. Those who opposed it said that it would inappropriately take financial aid away from football players for the sake of bringing the larger programs down to the Division II financial aid mean.

Ralph McFillen, commissioner of the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletic Association, said that a study showed that 250 student-athletes in his conference no longer would receive athletically related aid if the proposal passed, a difference of about $1 million annually.

But supporters said that recent Division II finncial aid deregulation legislation changed the rules regarding coutable aid and made such assessments dubious. "We're not talking about reducing athletics aid,' said Sharon Taylor, athletics director at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvaqnia. "We're talking about reducing equivalencies. By deregulatiing, we have increased the amount of cash that is available. This proposal would take us back to where we were, but it is being regarded as a cut."

Presidents from the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference portrayed football as being in an endangered state. Doug Kristensen, chancellor of the University of Nebraska at Kearney, said: "At some point, the question is not 'Do I reduce,' but "Do I do this anymore?'" Richard Weuste, president of Adams State College said that the real question didn't involve competitive equity but rather whether many institutuons would have to close the doors on their football programs.

Yet, those who opposed the proposals were not persuaded. South Atlantic Conference Commissioner Doug Echols supported the current system, which he said permits institutions to control the level of financial aid that they can afford while at the same time providing others with the option to fund below the allowable.

And others said that the proposal, if approved, would exacerbate the movement of programs from Division II to Division I. Tim Selgo, athletics director at Grand Valley State University, said that his institution would remain with Division II regardless of the outcome of the vote, but he said the proposal was "divisive" and that for some institutions it was "an ivnitation to look at the so-called promised land of Division I."

Ultimately, the proposal failed by a vote of 46-97-0.

New Management Council Chair Paul Engelmann, faculty athletics representative from Central Missouri State University, immediately advanced a healing agenda. "The Management Council is aware of the financial aid problems of all schools and is working to provide a meaningful solution," he said. "We hope that institutions at both ends of the spectrum will give us a chance to come up with meaningful options as we address the issue."

Other proposals

While Proposal No. 28 attracted most of the attention, it was not the only issue marked by debate.

No. 25, sponsored by the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic and the North Central Conferences, would have permitted student-athletes to compete in scrimmages or exhibition contests against outside competition without using a season of competititon. The proposals was supported by the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, but opposed by the Division II Presidents Council, which saw the potential for abuse.

Ed, Hoffmeyer, director of athletics at Tusculum College, inquird whether junior varsity competition could be counted as an "exhibition." After the Division II Interpretations Subcommittee answered yes (A response clearly supported by the language of the proposal iteself), the membership voted overwhelmingly to defeat the measure. Proposal No. 26, a sister proposal that would have created the same provisions for only men's and women's basketball, met a similar fate.

No. 27 would have effectively eliminated student-athletes who have only one remaining year of eligibility from transferring from Division I institutions to Division II. Jim Naumovich, commissioner of the Great Lakes Valley Conference, said: "Althought not all, many of these student-athletes are focused on competition rather than on graduating from the insitution."

Joan McDermott, director of athletics at Metropolitan State College of Denver, said the proposals was well-intented but that it was too broad and needed to be structured so that academically qualified transfer student-athletes would not be disadvantaged.

Jaime Petsch, a member of the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, said the SAAC was bothered by the impression that Division II student-athletes would not be able to hold their positions against transfers from Division I institutions and that Division I transfers potentially would be denied the opportunity to compete against Division II incumbents. "Bring 'em on!" she said.

One major piece of legislation did pass without any debate. Proposal No. 10, approved by a vote of 240-5-1, will establish a Division II Academic Success Rate that will require Division II institutions to submit annual academic-performance data, as prescribed by the Management Council, as a condition of membership. The new report will provide an alternative to the report produced annually through the federal Student Right-to-Know Act that will provide a better assessment of the academic performance of all Division II student-athletes and also will provide the division with the basis for more academic-performance research.