We left the 2004 NCAA Convention last January with a clear mandate to reevaluate Division II championship eligibility issues and to find potential solutions to what problems existed.

A Championship Eligibility Project Team was formed that included at least one representative from every Division II conference. Not only was this group diverse in that respect, but it also included at least one member representing the viewpoints of presidents, conference commissioners, athletics directors, faculty athletics representatives, senior woman athletics administrators, compliance officers, sports information directors, coaches and student-athletes. This project team has operated with a sense of urgency knowing that nothing that undermines a championship experience more than the existence of questions about the eligibility of participants.

After in-person meetings in January, June and October and literally hundreds of work hours invested in teleconference meetings, the project team has presented its initial draft to the membership in preparation for the 2005 NCAA Convention. The draft continues to be a work in progress, but we are at a point where we need others to provide insight and feedback.

The membership's first opportunity for feedback came recently in the form of a pre-Convention survey. It will continue with a Sunday issues forum at the Convention and with a post-Convention survey. Our goal is to have a finished product prepared for membership review this spring.

The project team began work with the knowledge that the vast majority of our institutions try to "do it right" when certifying student-athlete eligibility. While we acknowledge that there are cases in which student-athletes are certified incorrectly in order to gain a competitive advantage, we truly believe that those cases are rare. Most cases fall into the areas of lack of oversight, lack of understanding of the rules or lack of knowledge about the activities of the student-athlete, which ultimately affect eligibility. The project team tried to differentiate between those circumstances and still reinforcing the concept that every violation, regardless of intent, is serious and must have consequences.

At first glance, it appeared that the use of forfeitures might be a partial solution. A forfeit punishes the offender and rewards the team offended, which sounds viable. However, as the project team considered various scenarios, it became apparent that the concept of forfeits had unintended consequences. Forfeits alter two teams' won-lost records, which ultimately could affect other teams' strength of schedule. When one combines forfeits with Division II playoff-selection criteria, it becomes apparent that using forfeits could alter the status of teams not involved in any forfeited contests. The November 2004 preliminary report of the project team provides clear examples of such unintended consequences.

As the project team considered appropriate levels of punishment, we employed the following guidelines:

• Every infraction is significant.

• The penalty for use of an ineligible student-athlete should increase as the number of contests in which that athlete(s) competed increases.

• The penalty structure should affect the offending institution while having the least possible impact on other institutions.

• The penalty system should encourage timely self-reporting.

• The system should have an appellate process.

The project team continues to consider the concept of harsher penalties for those institutions that are habitual offenders or that have major violations of which they knew or should have known. Championship probation, championship suspension and sanctions against involved individuals are viable components of that punishment structure.

I am grateful to the project team members who have invested countless hours in development of the preliminary report, and I look forward to their continued service in 2005. I request that the Division II membership honor its commitment through a thorough evaluation of the preliminary report and by providing feedback to the team. The 2005 NCAA Convention provides a unique opportunity for all Division II member institutions to become active participants in this process.

David Riggins is athletics director at Mars Hill College and chair of the Division II Championships Eligibility Project Team.