Much as colleges and universities place a "countdown ticker" on their Web sites before the start of their football seasons, the Division II Management Council set the timer on a Convention vote that would change the composition of the sport’s championship segment in Division II.

As of the end of the Council meeting October 16-17 in Indianapolis, 81 days and 22 hours remained until Division II delegates cast at least two historic votes — one on whether to sponsor a second Division II football championship and another to require a two-thirds-majority vote on any proposals to modify equivalency limits in any sport.

While the outcome of both measures is in doubt, each has support from the Division II Presidents Council. Discussion at the Management Council level, though, portrayed a membership uneasy about the football future.

The Council’s football conversation continued a debate that has lingered within the Division II membership for more than a year. After the 2005 Convention during which a proposal to reduce equivalency limits in football was defeated by a wide margin, the Division II Football Task Force was created to study a possible new model for football that would provide programs that offer fewer scholarships a competitive chance to win a championship.

What the task force developed was a proposal that establishes two championship classifications, one for institutions that provide financial aid from zero to 36 equivalencies and another for schools that provide 50 percent or less than the maximum, or zero to 18. The two-championship model wouldn’t take effect until the 2009 championship season.

Proponents say the measure enhances and preserves competitive equity in Division II football and improves the student-athlete experience. Others, though, find the proposal divisive and the debate it has caused even more so. A few commissioners on the Council in fact said straw votes in their leagues cast doubts on the proposal’s passage.

But some Council members believe the tension is fueled by "misinformation" circulating at the institutional and conference levels. For example, some conferences already are speculating about the proposal’s effect on future budgets and travel schedules if league members choose different championships. The fact is, though, that the proposal would not affect regular-season schedules or conference rivalries. Other schools wonder whether they can play for the championship at the higher equivalency level even if they offer fewer than 18 equivalencies. The answer is yes.

Other concerns penetrate below the surface.

"I worry about those who suspect this is some sort of conspiracy," said Council Chair Jill Willson, the athletics director at Texas A&M University-Kingsville. "The Football Task Force was charged with developing opportunities, and that’s what it did. The membership asked for a model in which schools of all sizes could play for a championship, and that’s what it got."

Willson, who also served on the football task force, said the two-championship proposal is a viable option for Division II since it protects current members who fund football at a high level and offers an attractive option from programs with fewer resources. "Why wouldn’t people want both options?" she said.

Division II Vice President Mike Racy noted that the proposal’s support varies among leadership levels. He said on the one hand, athletics practitioners — commissioners, athletics directors and faculty athletics repre-
sentatives — view the measure from a here-and-now perspective as to its impact on a certain institution or league. "On the other hand," Racy said, "presidents see the proposal ultimately as a growth initiative for the division, one that retains current members and attracts prospective schools by giving each a meaningful and competitive postseason championship opportunity in football. Presidents and chancellors view this from the perspective of what Division II might look like in 10 years."

From the Management Council point of view, several members simply appear ready for the debate to end. One member said, "While in some ways this has further divided the feelings among the haves and have-nots, it feels like this is a solution — perhaps not the best possible — but certainly the best one on the table right now."

Willson said while details must be worked out, the basic premise must first move ahead. "If we don’t vote the concept in, then where are we with those schools that feel they can’t compete for a national championship?" she said.

The deadline to submit amendments to the proposal is November 1. Staff said that none had been received as of the end of the meeting.

Community-engagement legislation

In addition to the two proposals related to equivalencies, the Council reviewed other legislation for the Convention, including three proposals from the membership.

The Council supported a measure from the Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic and Gulf South Conferences that would require a two-thirds majority vote to reduce equivalencies in a given sport, but Council members noted their preference for a Presidents Council proposal that would require the same super majority for any equivalency adjustment, not just a reduction. Staff noted that the Presidents Council sponsored proposal would precede the other in the voting order at the Convention.

The Council did not support the other two membership proposals. One from the California Collegiate Athletic Association and the Great Northwest Conference would specify that a four-year college transfer who participated on the previous four-year institution’s club team would not be charged with a season of competition. Current rules count the club-team participation as a season of competition if the institution the student-athlete transfers to offers that sport at the varsity level. Council members hesitated supporting the proposal because the exemption would be restricted to four-year transfers rather than including two-year transfers and club-sport student-athletes at the home institution.

The Council also did not support a measure from the Sunshine State Conference and the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association in part because it called for eliminating skill-instruction limitations, particularly the number of student-athletes permitted. Skill instruction is an issue on which the Management Council and other groups plan to develop proposals for the 2008 Convention.

A total of 23 proposals will be considered at the Division II business session January 8, nine of which will be by roll-call vote.

Among them is the division’s community-engagement initiative that relaxes standard recruiting, publicity, and awards and benefits regulations when an institution engages in a community-based activity designed to benefit the community more than the institution. The proposal is part of the bigger picture related to Division II’s strategic-positioning platform.

The legislation defines the parameters of a community-engagement activity as one in which an institution "participates for the primary purpose of enhancing the community rather than benefiting the institution." Further, the institution must be able to demonstrate how the engagement of the institution’s assets (student-athletes and facilities, for example) meets a specified community need or shows how the use of those assets embellishes a college-wide community support strategy.

Under those conditions, the proposal provides for nine "exceptions" to current NCAA rules that allow the institution to participate in legitimate, organized and predetermined engagement activities.

Proponents see the proposal as critical in distinguishing Division II’s identity, but they also acknowledge it will require a departure from a decades-old mind-set of placing competitive equity first.

"People struggle with this when they think of it strictly as deregulation," one Management Council member said. "If a student-athlete can call a prospect during one of these initiatives, that’s scary to an old coach like me. Some of this goes against the old ways of doing things, but as long as it’s community-based, then we need to move ahead."

Willson agreed that the proposal will test the division’s trust resolve. "But in the past," she said, "we’ve legislated to the 3 percent of people who don’t do the right thing. In this case, we need to legislate for the 97 percent of people who do."

Council member and Coker College Athletics Director Tim Griggs provided a good example of how the legislation could benefit Division II institutions. This fall, Coker will sponsor a "Taste of Coker" in which guest cooks from the campus, including the college president, prepare special dishes as part of a buffet that community members can attend for a flat fee. The event on the campus’ soccer facility gives Coker coaches assigned to each cook and student-athletes from all Coker teams the chance to network with community members.

The event is an ideal example of community engagement, but under current rules, Griggs has to be concerned about whether his coaches have to count it as an official contact if a prospective student-athlete comes through the buffet line.

"The reason the Presidents Council has been so supportive of this legislation is because current restrictions are hampering institutions’ efforts to engage their communities," Racy said. "If that community linkage is important to Division II’s identity, then the goal is to relieve the burdens the current rules present. Is lifting those restrictions a culture change? Yes, but it’s an important change if the Division II culture includes community integration."

• Approved a recommendation from the Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports to add a class of drugs — anti-estrogens — to the NCAA-banned drug list (effective August 1, 2007). As an Association-wide proposal, the legislation must be approved by all three divisions.
• Agreed to support noncontroversial legislation that would allow the Playing Rules Oversight Panel to oversee the nomination and selection of secretary-rules editor candidates and to consider requests to extend term limits for the position.
• Did not support a recommendation to sponsor legislation for the 2008 Convention that would expand the Championships Committee to include one representative from each Division II conference. The Council did, however, ask the Championships Committee to consider a composition policy that would ensure regional representation.
• Approved a $7,500 allocation to the Division II Make-A-Wish initiative (with the intent of having the Presidents Council match the allocation at its October 26 meeting).
• Reviewed Division II priorities for 2007, including strengthening of the Division II strategic-positioning platform, which defines characteristics of Division II institutions, and enhancing the relationship with CSTV, which is in the first year of a three-year agreement to showcase select Division II football and men’s and women’s basketball games on live broadcasts.
• Reviewed the issue of male practice players and noted the national office governance staff’s intent to survey Division II members about the matter. Also noted that the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee plans to discuss the issue further at its November meeting. Also requested staff to draft a proposal that would incorporate current interpretations in the NCAA Manual for the Council to review at its January meeting. (The Council believes that is the first step in educating the membership on current rules and restrictions related to the use of male practice players.)