Television exposure for Division II championships events has more than quadrupled over the last two years, the Division II Presidents Council learned at its April 28 meeting in Indianapolis.

In 2004-05, a total of 17 championship finals, semifinals or selection shows will be televised -- 18 if a third game is necessary in the best-of-three softball finals. That contrasts with the 2002-03 academic year when only four championship finals were telecast.

Some of the expansion can be attributed to the Presidents Council's January decision to authorize funding to underwrite broadcast production for selected Division II events. That money so far has made it possible to air selection shows for the men's and women's basketball championships and to carry semifinal games in men's and women's basketball. Live telecasts of the baseball and softball finals also have been planned.

In addition, telecasts of several fall 2005 championships are contemplated.

"Speaking for myself, I believe our investment has yielded some very promising results," said Art Kirk, president of Saint Leo University and vice-chair of the Presidents Council. "It merits consideration for ongoing treatment."

Greg Shaheen, NCAA vice-president for Division I basketball and championships strategies, told the group that its decision to underwrite production costs "is off to a healthy start" but cautioned that television will remain an expensive medium.

The funding for producing the 2005 championships came from a surplus in the 2003-04 championships budget. With 2005 winter championships complete, it appears that the 2004-05 budget will yield a surplus as large as, or even greater than, last year's.

In that regard, the presidents indulged in additional brainstorming about broadcasting, considering the possibility of a Division II regular-season package, in addition to the expanded championship package that is already in place.

Shaheen said that such an approach would provide a "larger canvas to tell the Division II story," but he also said the division would need to make certain that host facilities are rated for television for the plan to succeed. If not, expenses could skyrocket as producers are forced to acquire items such as extra power generators, stadium lights or scaffolding for camera placements.

"The obvious answer is to schedule day games, but that doesn't really address the issue," Shaheen said. "You still have to deal with overcast days or games that go longer than expected.

"The point is that you don't want to have a 'Game of the Week' and then have it be unbecoming. It needs to be funded and structured the right way."

Kirk said that many Division II institutions probably have not thought about national broadcasting standards when considering their facilities. In that regard, he suggested that Division II institutions be surveyed to determine the television viability of various venues.

Presidents Council members wanted to know if the production funding should be regarded as an ongoing expense. Shaheen suggested that it should be thought of as an investment in helping to educate the public about Division II and said that the larger question might be how to allocate the money in future years.

For instance, he suggested that Division II consider using video productions that could appear on stadium video boards, campus television or local-access cable systems. Radio broadcasts also have been suggested. In addition, technology almost certainly will bring about new delivery methods over the next decade.

Whatever approach is taken, Shaheen encouraged the presidents to stick with the commitment they make.

"The model you are contemplating is a sound investment," he said, "but it needs to be sustained to work."

Financial study

In other business, the presidents were provided with a preliminary version of the Division II financial report that will be presented to Division II chief executive officers at the June 24-26 Presidents and Chancellors Summit in Orlando, Florida.

Kirk -- who presided over the meeting in place of Chair Kathryn Martin, who was ill -- was pleased with what he saw.

"After seeing this update, the Council feels very good," he said. "The initial data are interesting and stimulating. This will be an eye-opener for all of the presidents and chancellors who attend the summit in Orlando."

The research project, done by Jonathan M. and Peter R. Orszag, provides comparative analysis of Divisions I and II finances. It also contains case studies of institutions that have moved from Division II to Division I.

Legislation

The presidents also discussed legislation that could be considered at the 2006 NCAA Convention.

The presidents ended up in a similar place as the Division II Management Council on legislation that would place academic restrictions on student-athletes transferring to a Division II institution with only one season of eligibility remaining.

The Presidents Council agreed to sponsor the change in concept, but it agreed that it wants to review a membership survey on the matter that will be available this summer.

Some members believe that current rules are sufficient to deter transfer abuse if they are applied correctly. Others, however, believe that a few such transfers can seriously distort Division II's competitive landscape, especially in basketball.

The Presidents Council likely will discuss the proposal in more detail at its August meeting.

The proposal that caused the most discussion was one that previously had drawn little attention. It was a proposed amendment to Bylaw 13 developed by the Legislation Committee that would permit institutions to publish nonathletics institutional advertisements in nonathletics high-school publications, such as yearbooks, student newspapers, music programs and prom programs.

Presidents who support the proposal believe that Division II does not possess the authority to restrict communication between a college and a high school on matters not pertaining to college athletics. However, others said the current legislation prevents a small arms race of institutional advertising in high-school publications.

A vote on whether to sponsor the proposal ended in a 5-5-1 tie. In the alternative, the Council voted to table the proposal, to get more input from athletics administrators and to discuss the issue again in August.

Football task force

The Council did approve a new Division II task force to examine football issues. The new group -- to be chaired by Wingate University President Jerry McGee -- will be charged with studying a new model for football within the NCAA structure. The expectation is that the newly formed group will meet with a similar group from Division I to determine if cross-division structural changes can be made to improve the health of the game.

The Division II group was composed to have representation from every football-playing conference, independent institutions, the Management Council, the Championships Committee, the Membership Committee, the Division II Conference Commissioners Association and the Division II Athletics Directors Association.

Those who have been invited to serve on the task force in addition to McGee are:

• Barry Blizzard, commissioner, West Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Association;

• Bob Boerigter, director of athletics, Northwest Missouri State University;

• Tom Brown, commissioner, Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference;

• Bob Burke, director of athletics, American International College;

• Paul Engelmann, faculty athletics representative, Central Missouri State University;

• Lynda Goodrich, director of athletics, Western Washington University;

• Larry Holstad, director of athletics, Winona State University;

• Ed Matejkovic, director of athletics, West Chester University of Pennsylvania;

• Jeff McLeod, assistant commissioner, Central Intercollegiate Athletics Association;

• Jon McBride, director of athletics, University of Nebraska at Kearney;

• Gwen Reeves, director of athletics, Fort Valley State University;

• Herb Reinhard, director of athletics, Valdosta State University;

• Roger Thomas, commissioner, North Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference; and

• Jill Willson, director of athletics, Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

Other highlights

Division II Presidents Council
April 28/Indianapolis

* Noted that 20 institutions representing 11 conferences have been selected as recipients of the first Division II Coaching Enhancement Grants. The conferences are the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic, Great Lakes Valley, Great Northwest Athletic, North Central, Northeast-10, Northern Sun Intercollegiate, Peach Belt, Rocky Mountain Athletic, South Atlantic and Sunshine State Conferences and the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association. A total of $320,000 will be distributed through the matching-grant program.

• Re-elected Art Kirk, president of Saint Leo University and vice-chair of the Presidents Council, to another term on the Council.

• Ratified a number of committee appointments but expressed concern about diversity issues within Division II committees. The topic will be on the agenda for the next Presidents Council meeting.

• Received an update on plans for the Presidents and Chancellors Summit June 24-26 in Orlando, Florida. A total of 155 Division II chief executive officers -- more than half of the CEOs in the division -- have registered for the event.

• Endorsed the guiding principles for a model Division II athletics program, but asked the Division II Athletics Directors Association to modify the model itself. The presidents said that the document should seek to make the athletics department comparable to other college or university departments. Some of the presidents believed that the recommended model was overly prescriptive, especially in the salaries and benefits section.