« back to 2006 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
|
The Division II Presidents Council employed a long-term view at its August 2-3 meeting, staking out bold new directions for postseason football and membership stability.
The marquee action was a vote to sponsor legislation at the 2007 Convention to establish two football brackets in Division II. However, the Council’s acceptance of a strategic-positioning platform and support of a new provisional-member process were no less important.
The proposed legislation for football — developed by the Division II Football Task Force and moved forward by the Division II Management Council — would create one bracket for programs offering from 0 to 36 financial aid equivalencies and another for programs offering up to 50 percent of the maximum (that is, 0 to 18 equivalencies).
"The proposal to create two brackets brings forth an innovative way to strengthen Division II football," said Division II Presidents Council Chair Charles Ambrose, president of Pfeiffer University. "The Council is excited about taking this
forward with an endorsement that it’s the best approach for the long-term success of Division II football."
The change is intended to provide programs that are not able to afford a high number of equivalencies — often programs that sponsor a large number of sports — with an opportunity to be nationally competitive in football. While such programs currently constitute about one-third of the playoff field, only fully funded teams have reached the Division II football finals in recent years.
If approved at the Convention, the two-bracket approach would take effect with the 2009 season. Based on current football equivalency offerings, the bracket for programs with the most equivalencies would contain 16 teams while the second bracket would be made up of eight.
Conferences would be required to choose a bracket by September 2008, with the commitment binding for three years.
"The presidents feel very strongly that we can learn from some of Division I’s experiences with two football subdivisions," said Division II Vice President Mike Racy.
"If this proposal passes, it won’t affect the way Division II is governed, nor will it really even affect the way football is structured in Division II. We will still have one Football Committee, the same four-region structure will exist and one poll will be conducted in each region. The only change would be that at the end of the season, the committee will choose 16 teams to place in one bracket and eight for the other."
The Council also agreed to sponsor legislation for the January Convention that would require any future modifications to existing financial aid limits in any sport to be approved by a two-thirds majority.
As one Council member noted, a requirement for a two-thirds majority to make changes should be reserved for regulations that are fundamental to the core philosophy of the membership division. The Presidents Council agreed that athletics scholarship limits fit that definition.
Strategic positioning
While the football proposal clearly relates most directly to football, it also involves Division II’s ongoing efforts to calm a turbulent membership climate. Since 1997, 21 institutions have reclassified to Division I. Others are openly considering reclassification.
"The hope is that if we can remove the cloud hanging over Division II football, we can help stabilize membership in Division II," Racy said.
"But this membership problem must be solved on several levels. We have to make sure that we define our division so that current and prospective members understand what we’re about. And we also need to develop a better program for prospective members — one that moves them into membership as quickly as possible while also providing accurate assessments of their readiness for active membership."
The presidents helped with the definition part by giving their final blessing to a Division II strategic-positioning platform (see accompanying table) that provides a comprehensive description of what it means to be a Division II member.
The platform offers a Division II positioning statement that describes the Division II student-athlete experience as a "comprehensive program of learning and development in a personal setting."
It also highlights six Division II brand attributes — learning, service, passion, sportsmanship, resourcefulness and balance — along with a list of four key audiences (and descriptions of how those audiences benefit from the Division II experience).
The document has had several practical applications so far. Racy said it has helped new and provisional members more effectively explain their decision to affiliate with Division II. Also, Dennis Cryder, NCAA senior vice president for branding and communication, said the platform has been valuable in linking Division II with its creative partners.
In that regard, the Presidents Council received a preview of a Division II image campaign that will be unveiled at the Division II National Championships Festival in Pensacola, Florida, in November. The theme is based on the attributes contained in the strategic-positioning platform and also on the belief that people and institutions make a reasoned and correct decision in affiliating with Division II.
The presidents also focused on two other important related developments: the new television and broadband agreement with CSTV (see story on page 12) and the ongoing work of the Community Advisory Group (see the July 31 issue of The NCAA News).
NCAA President Myles Brand told the Council that the CSTV agreement will bring "Division II stories into living rooms in a way that was not even imagined before...This is good news. We put this one in the ‘win’ column." The Council acknowledged the role of Greg Weitekamp, NCAA director of broadcasting alliances, and his associates in making the partnership happen.
As for the Community Advisory Group, the Council agreed to sponsor a series of proposals that would relax recruiting restrictions and permit greater contact with boosters when student-athletes and coaches participate in community-outreach activities.
"Our membership will know we’re serious about community involvement when we present this legislative package," Ambrose said.
While the presidents continue to accept the concept of taking a lead role in community building, some worried about the potential for abuse.
"The definition of ‘community outreach’ is most important," one president said. "We must be exceedingly careful that we don’t back into creating a loophole for inappropriate contacts."
The group generally agreed that the approach will require a higher level of trust among the membership but that behavioral boundaries will continue to exist. Impermissible activities will be referred to the enforcement staff.
Membership
The Council also agreed to sponsor legislation to establish a streamlined process for provisional and reclassifying members. The proposal will be considered at the 2007 Convention.
If approved, the legislation would require prospective members — both new members and those reclassifying — to complete at least two years of exploratory membership and at least one year of provisional membership. Current regulations require one year of exploratory membership and four years of provisional membership.
After the second year of exploratory membership, the Membership Committee would decide whether to invite the prospective institution into provisional membership, based on an extensive assessment process. The exploratory process would continue until the institution was invited to become a provisional member or until it withdrew.
The provisional period then would be used to assess the institution’s compliance readiness. That process could take as little as one year.
While the Presidents Council supported the concept, it hesitated at the suggested total of $50,000 in new-member fees —-a $25,000 application fee and a $25,000 member fee. Both figures are tied to the actual costs of providing the assessments.
That part of the recommendation was sent back to the Membership Committee for a review of the fees, plus an evaluation of how those expenses relate to fees that conferences levy on new members.
n
Ratified the elections of Wendy Taylor May, senior woman administrator at the University of California, San Diego, and Suzanne Sanregret, Michigan Technological University, to the Division II Management Council. Taylor May will represent the California Collegiate Athletic Association while Sanregret will serve at large.n
Discussed concerns expressed by the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association about the Division II championships regionalization policy that was approved at the Council’s April meeting. The new policy will be mandatory for all Division II sports beginning in 2008-09.n
In response to an inquiry about committee cost savings, the Presidents Council advised the Executive Committee that it would prefer to continue with its current practice of meeting four times annually. The Council said that cutting back to three meetings likely would result in less efficiency and more burden on the presidents themselves.n
Noted that this was the final Presidents Council meeting for Art Kirk, president of Saint Leo University, as vice chair and as chair of the Division II Budget and Finance Committee. Kirk’s term on the Council ends in January at the conclusion of the 2007 Convention. Eddie Moore, president of Virginia State University, replaces Kirk as vice chair.© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy