BALTIMORE -- Division II's effort to change how the Association views football classification encountered strong tailwinds and heavy headwinds during the same September 27 meeting.

The Division II Football Task Force meeting included several Division I-AA representatives who reacted positively to efforts to create postseason opportunities for Divisions I and II programs that offer few or no scholarships. However, Division I-AA's fully funded programs appeared less enthusiastic about a proposal that would decouple Divisions I and II football from the traditional NCAA membership classification system and enable football programs to choose competition levels based on how many grants-in-aid they provide.

The group studied the wide range of grants-in-aid provided in Divisions I and II and noted a high correlation between the number of grants provided and the access that those programs have to postseason play. Information provided by the NCAA research staff showed that institutions funded at the highest levels reached the playoffs an average of 1.07 times over the previous five-year period while those offering between one and 15 equivalencies reached the playoffs only .26 times over the same period. The average for institutions offering no scholarships was .15.

"If you're one of the Division II or I-AA schools fighting for a spot in the playoffs, you might think everything is OK," said Wingate University President Jerry McGee, task force chair. "But if you're one of the 90 percent who aren't, you might think there's a problem."

With that in mind, members of the task force and the I-AA guests readily agreed that Divisions I and II should further explore what can be done to provide postseason access for low- or no-scholarship programs, either in the form of an additional playoff or through a series of regional "bowl games."

That mutual understanding, however, did not address the main issue that led to the creation of the task force, which is what the appropriate limit for Division II football equivalencies should be.

A number of Division II constituents had hoped that a high-level alliance with Division I-AA might mend a philosophical split about equivalency limits within Division II. But a Division I-AA representative said that creating a shared level of high-end competition would be contrary to the recent Division I-AA enhancement initiative, which calls for an elimination of subclassifications within Division I. Creating a football playoff system that also involves Division II institutions would be inconsistent with the objectives of the enhancement program, he said.

The task force, with the assistance of the American Football Coaches Association, still plans to survey Divisions I-AA and II football-playing institutions in October, and responses about classification could cause the task force and others to revisit an alternative football classification system. But if highly funded Division I-AA programs support the status quo, it will be pointless for Division II to pursue a top-level cross-division model.

That reality led the task force to discuss alternate possibilities within Division II. If funding could be arranged and if it could be demonstrated that additional championships (but not additional participants) are not contrary to the spirit of Title IX, the group appeared to support three football playoff opportunities for Division II institutions:

• One for the programs that currently are the most highly funded.

• A second one for institutions at or near the proposed equivalency limit of 24 that was defeated at the January Convention.

• A third one at the low- or no-scholarship level that could involve both Divisions I and II institutions.

As part of that discussion, the task force discussed whether the Division II subclassification with the higher limit should remain at the current ceiling of 36. Although no formal votes were taken, the consensus seemed to be that a higher limit might be desired. The group also seemed to agree that institutions should be allowed to "play up" to a higher equivalency level if they desire. That accommodation would allay the concern of several conferences that their football memberships could be fragmented by an equivalency-based subclassification system.

The task force also suggested that Division I consider revisiting its policy of requiring its institutions to play all sports at the Division I level. At one time, Division I permitted its members to play football at any level. In response to concerns from Division III, Division I voted at the 1991 Convention to require its members to sponsor all of their sports in Division I (effective with the 1994 season). While the change had the desired effect for Division III, it displaced a number of football programs that were competitive on a low-scholarship basis in Division II. When those institutions were forced to reclassify to Division I, many chose to go nonscholarship rather than commit to the funding required to be nationally competitive at the I-AA level.

Some members of the task force believed that the current Division I restriction does not necessarily benefit those institutions nor the student-athletes who might be able to receive financial aid if their institution could find an appropriate level of competition.

The task force will continue to meet via conference call. Its next in-person meeting is tentatively scheduled for next spring.