DALLAS -- Respondents to a survey of Division II member institutions overwhelmingly agreed with the Championships Eligibility Project Team on its recommendation that teams using ineligible players should have contests nullified.

According to a survey conducted after the release of the preliminary report of the project team, 92 percent of respondents said nullification of a contest is the appropriate penalty for teams that use ineligible players.

The recommendations of the project team were featured in an education session at the NCAA Convention, and the presentation drew broad interest but elicited few questions from the crowd.

The panel discussion, led by project team Chair Dave Riggins, summarized the preliminary report of the group and shared the timeline for future action.

The nullification recommendation, which replaces the more traditional penalty of forfeiture, impacts far fewer teams, and under the current proposal, a contest would be nullified for the offending team regardless of both the outcome of the game and the ineligible player's contribution. Jane Meier, another committee member and athletics director at Northern Kentucky University, illustrated the number of teams forfeiture affects when one team is forced to forfeit 12 contests: More than 80 teams are affected in some way. On the other hand, nullification affects only the offending team in win/loss percentage, strength of schedule and championship selection.

Officials are still looking for input on the amount of the nullification penalty.

The report also included a recommendation for fines assessed for secondary violations of $250 per athlete per contest, up to $2,500 per sport per season. Officials also are looking for recommendations from member institutions for the use of the fines collected, and a charitable fund such as Make-A-Wish is a possibility.

Any legislation that will be proposed is likely to eliminate the material-contribution concept from the NCAA Division II Manual and modify championships-eligibility bylaws.

Another major part of the report is compliance education, including a compliance Web site, the production and use of an eligibility verification form, the institution of a "compliance watch period" for repeat offenders and championships suspension if an institution already in a compliance watch period offends again.

Officials are looking for input from the membership before determining the course of action after a championships suspension.

Riggins, who serves as athletics director at Mars Hill College, said the only feedback he had heard since the release of the preliminary report late last year was concern about the nullification process. He said he hoped that by the time the project team meets again in March, members will be buoyed by support from the Division II membership. The lack of questions at the Convention session, he said, wasn't relevant because the team had done a thorough job of identifying different people throughout Division II who could serve as individual conduits for feedback.

The team could conduct another survey after the Convention, and members will discuss the issue at its meeting. If team members have heard concerns between now and then, Riggins said, the survey could be a prudent course of action.

He anticipates some legislation on the issue will be introduced for consideration at the 2006 Convention in Indianapolis.