The Division II Presidents Council hopes to see a strong definition of Division II attributes and values develop over the course of a 10-month research effort designed to establish the division as an effective NCAA sub-brand.

Council members at their October 27 meeting in Indianapolis endorsed a research effort led by Jeff Jacobs of the Trilix Group that will use focus groups in four cities nationwide to develop a quantitative survey to be administered to Division II constituents in March 2006. Results of both the focus groups and the survey will be available later that spring, with a final "branding plan" presented to the Council in August 2006.

Jacobs asked Council members what they would define as a successful brand and how they would know when they had reached that success. That question spurred discussion of how to define Division II as a sub-brand without infringing upon the identity of the parent brand. Council Chair Kathryn A. Martin, chancellor of the University of Minnesota Duluth, likened the quandary to the fine line she walks in identifying with the University of Minnesota name but still branding Minnesota Duluth as a sub-brand.

"I want to be able to build on that (Minnesota) brand, but still be unique," Martin said. "(Division II) is not a minor league, but we have never done well at defining what we are. We are an alternative."

A few presidents identified success as having more fans in the stands and more television exposure, but most indicated they believed a successful brand would create a unique identity for Division II that could be spread regionally and at the grass-roots level within each institution's community.

At the Presidents and Chancellors Summit held in Orlando in June, presidents heard from media researcher Rich Luker who espoused a similar view -- he said he believes many Division II institutions would be best served by focusing on community interests. He indicated he believes Division II institutions are well-positioned for this kind of focus because of the public's increasing appetite for entertainment on a smaller, more local scale.

In their discussion, several Council members said they appreciated Luker's perspective and were willing to work in that direction, once they defined the sub-brand.

Council members struggled to articulate exactly what Division II is, often drawing comparisons to the two other NCAA divisions that they believe have more clearly defined themselves. Division I has claimed it offers elite competition opportunities, while Division III portrays itself as the home for academic excellence, members said. Division II, according to the Council, is more difficult to explain and understand.

The initial attempt at branding Division II as a division that offers balance between two extremes has proven popular with Council members, who indicated they would like to see it included in the research. That theme emerged the recent summit, which spurred discussions about creating a sub-brand. Martin indicated that she believes Division II institutions aspire to achieve balance between athletics and academics in a way that is distinct for Division II.

"There is something special about the fact that there is this balance (in Division II)," she said. "It is our goal."

The struggle of finding a well-defined and easily explained niche for Division II is a battle most presidents face on their campuses every day. Council Vice Chair Art Kirk, president of Saint Leo University, noted the pressure some presidents feel to find an identity that is not a "minor league" to Division I and does not require the "mantle of academic elite-ness" that Division III institutions sometimes carry.

Jacobs indicated that many of the issues the Council discussed will be incorporated into the focus group discussions -- scheduled to be conducted with both general public and Division II-specific audiences -- and eventually the quantitative survey. Ultimately, he said, the research project will be used to tell the Division II story.

In other business at the Council's fall meeting, members heard a presentation from Bernard Franklin, NCAA senior vice president for governance and membership and chair of a staff committee designated by the Executive Committee to review institutional appeals of the Native American mascot policy. So far, successful reviews of the policy have been brought by the University of Utah, Florida State University and Central Michigan University. Newberry College, Bradley University and the University of North Dakota have been unsuccessful in their requests to be taken off the banned list. Newberry and North Dakota are Division II schools.

Reviews for the University of Illinois, Champaign, and Indiana University of Pennsylvania still are pending.

Some presidents indicated they did not believe the new policy, which puts restrictions on the use of Native American mascots, nicknames and imagery at NCAA championships, was an appropriate course of action for the Executive Committee or the Association as a whole. However, most members indicated their support for the policy and applauded the sensitivity displayed by the staff and committee members involved in the issue.