GARDEN GROVE, California -- The Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee is all for enhancing Division II's identity, but when it comes to a name change, the student-athletes have a simple message: Thanks, but no thanks.

At the annual summit of the Division II Management Council and the SAAC on July 16-17, the student-athletes stood squarely behind how the NCAA's middle division has been identified since it was created in 1973.

"As members of the SAAC, we are proud to be Division II," said committee Vice-Chair Marian Broderick of Missouri Western State College. "If we change, all of the tradition and pride that we have with our alumni will be diminished greatly."

The SAAC position was in response to sentiment expressed at the Division II Chancellors and Presidents Summit in June when several presidents said that the division suffers from a name that suggests mediocrity. While the presidents stood solidly behind Division II's purpose, they believed that it would gain greater public acceptance if it renamed itself in a more prominent way -- something such as "Division A."

The student-athletes did not buy that notion, instead saying that Division II should build on the strengths that it already possesses.

"We should focus on our communities," said SAAC Chair John Semeraro of Saint Leo University. "We should focus on being regional. If we do those things right, then a stair step to greater public recognition may follow."

The topic related indirectly to sportsmanship, another primary student-athlete issue identified at the meeting. The student-athletes believed the topic was important, not only because of the lessons that can be learned but also because of how the public perceives college athletics.

The SAAC developed a sportsmanship statement, subsequently endorsed by the Management Council, that states: "As Division II student-athletes, we commit to sportsmanship and ethical conduct by demonstrating fair play, responsibility and respect."

Both the student-athletes and administrators acknowledged that sportsmanship is complicated. Even arriving at a common definition can be challenging.

However, they agreed that it is not difficult to establish understandable goals, such as promoting an environment where parents can feel comfortable about bringing their children to Division II events. To achieve that environment, the student-athletes said that coaches and student-athletes themselves must be educated about what behavior is acceptable and that administrators must hold all parties accountable.

Other SAAC concepts

The SAAC also proposed that Division II require exit interviews for outgoing student-athletes, similar to what currently is required in Division I. The Management Council acknowledged that such interviews can yield important information, but some members were concerned about administrative challenges that can accompany a comprehensive exit-interview program. The question was referred to the Division II Student-Athlete Involvement Task Force.

Student-athletes also identified substance abuse as a major issue. They agreed that expanded drug-testing should be the response to outright abuse of performance-enhancing drugs, such as steroids. That led to an inquiry about whether the Center for Drug Free Sport, which conducts drug testing for the Association, could administer additional institutional tests when it appears on campus for year-round testing.

The SAAC and Management Council were equally concerned about banned substances that are ingested through so-called nutritional supplements. The groups agreed that the banned list is poorly understood by student-athletes, administrators and coaches and that all parties might benefit if the national office could provide greater clarity about the substances on the list, why they are there, why they are banned and how they might be commonly known (as opposed to the complicated chemical identification).

Legislation

Regarding proposed legislation, the student-athletes generally supported proposals that will be sponsored by the Presidents Council in January.

They did pause on one amendment that would permit private institutions to provide tuition waivers for out-of-state students, wondering whether such waivers could actually occur or if they could be abused. Also, some (but by no means not all) student-athletes were uncomfortable with a proposal that would permit coaches who are assigned strength and conditioning responsibilities to monitor individual workouts for safety purposes without counting such supervision as a countable athletically related activity -- provided no coaching activities occur. Concerns ranged from what is considered "coaching" (for instance, would simple encouragement be considered coaching?) to how coaches' involvement would be monitored.

The student-athletes and administrators also paid special attention to a recent Academic Requirements Committee proposal that would require four-year transfers to Division II institutions to meet the same standards required of two-year transfers -- an average of 12 hours per term of transferable credit with a 2.000 grade-point average.

The proposal was designed to address a concern that academically unqualified but athletically gifted student-athletes are transferring from Division I institutions with only one year of eligibility remaining. Such athletes seldom graduate and can skew the competitive landscape in sports such as basketball.

The proposal would put the responsibility for certifying the eligibility of such student-athletes on the Division II institution rather than permitting the originating institution to claim that the student-athlete was meeting the standard before transfer.

Some student-athletes were concerned that some 4-4 transfers in their first and second years would have problems with the proposed standard, noting that the requirement would be more demanding than Division II's continuing-eligibility requirement, which requires a 1.800 GPA after the first 24 hours and a 1.900 after the first 48.

At its July 18-19 meeting, the Management Council amended the recommendation so that it would apply only to student-athletes who are transferring with only one season of remaining eligibility.

The meeting was the final one for SAAC members Nicole DeBlois of Bentley College and Emily Hutchinson of the University of Hawaii at Hilo.