The Division II Presidents Council is leaving no doubt about its stance on a proposal to offer a postseason football alternative for institutions funding the sport at different levels. Calling on presidential leadership to carry the day at the 2007 Convention, the Council said clearly that the proposal to distinguish two football championships based on equivalency levels is in Division II’s best interests and should be supported.

"It will be important for us to reiterate that message between now and January," Presidents Council Chair Charles Ambrose said at the group’s October 26 meeting in Indianapolis.

The football proposal, which came from the Presidents Council-appointed Football Task Force and subsequently was endorsed by both the Management and Presidents Councils, would establish 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 idea was to give a wider range of institutions a competitive postseason opportunity beginning with the 2009 season.

The presidents reaffirmed their support after hearing reports of membership pushback on both the football proposal and another Presidents Council-sponsored measure that would require a two-thirds majority to change equivalency limits in any sport. Presidents consider both critical to Division II’s future stability. They say the football proposal enhances and preserves competitive equity in Division II football and positions the division for membership growth, and that the super majority helps stabilize the financial environment so that institutions can plan long-term the type of funding and level of commitment they must achieve to be competitive.

They agreed to launch a communication campaign to counter what they believe is misinformation circulating in the membership about both proposals. Of primary concern is the notion that the proposals are somehow designed to further separate schools that fund football at the highest levels from those that don’t.

"If we believe that this is good for the future and allows for the breadth of diversity that is Division II football, we need to let everyone — including commissioners, athletics directors and coaches — hear that message from presidents and chancellors," said Ambrose, president at Pfeiffer University. "I’ve heard members of this Presidents Council say that the football proposal in front of us is the best option for Division II."

The Presidents Council’s support piggybacks onto an endorsement two weeks earlier from the Division II Management Council. However, members of both groups say candidly that straw votes in some of their conferences don’t match the Council positions.

"It is important for delegates to understand clearly the ramifications of this vote," Ambrose said. "That is why it will be critical for the Presidents Council to take a leadership role on the issue. It’s time to start campaigning."

The football proposal is one of 23 to be voted on at the Division II business session January 8. The Presidents Council reviewed the legislative grouping and designated three proposals (2-15, 2-16 and 2-19 in the SPOPL) as a consent package and nine others to be conducted by roll-call vote.

The presidents also considered three membership proposals, opposing two and taking no position on the other.

Council members did not support a measure from the California Collegiate Athletic Association and the Great Northwest Conference to 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. The presidents did not like the fact that the proposal treats four-year and two-year transfer cohorts — as well as student-athletes who chose to remain at the same member institution for their entire academic career — differently.

The presidents also did not support a proposal from the Sunshine State Conference and the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association regarding athletically related activities during exam periods and limitations on skill instruction, in part because the skill-instruction piece remains under debate and may not be ripe for legislative proposals until the 2008 Convention.

The Management Council also opposed both measures at its October 16-17 meeting.

The Presidents Council took no position on a proposal the Management Council supported 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. The Presidents Council prefers its own proposal that would require the same super majority for any equivalency adjustment, not just a reduction. If the Presidents Council-sponsored proposal is adopted, the membership-sponsored proposal would be moot.

The Presidents Council also discussed an empirical study it has commissioned on the value of participating in Division II athletics, an initiative that aligns with the division’s strategic-positioning platform and the NCAA strategic plan, both of which emphasize the need for quality research to help campus leaders make informed decisions.

With attributes identified in the strategic-positioning platform that speak to the value of intercollegiate athletics at the Division II level, the presidents are interested in research that would quantify what to date has been only anecdotal evidence. The presidents commissioned a fiscal study in 2005 that explored the cost ramifications of an institution moving its athletics program from Division II to Division I, which addressed membership concerns at the time. But the second and more comprehensive study is intended to help institutional personnel understand athletics’ campus-wide impact on enrollment, image and endowment, among other factors.

"This study is valuable for Division II because it will begin to call attention to the value that an institution could receive from operating in Division II’s partial athletics scholarship model," said Division II Vice President Mike Racy. "That assessment not only is key to current Division II members, but also to those considering Division II as an option for their athletics programs."

Hardwick-Day, an education consulting firm, has been retained to conduct the research. The key components of the study include:

Development of a model or template to demonstrate the enrollment-management value of a Division II athletics program and, more specifically, the potential for enhancing net tuition revenue for the combination of academic/athletics aid in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.

Development of a financial aid model demonstrating the value of athletics in terms of total revenue generated, both from traditional athletics department revenue lines and funds generated from tuition and other forms of financial aid.

The identification of ancillary benefits to the institutions such as diversity and gender balance, which adds to the richness of the college experience.

The identification of other university activities that benefit from the athletics program, such as auxiliary enterprises (residence halls, food service, student union) and alumni programs.

The research, funded through surplus dollars earmarked for Division II strategic plan initiatives, should be concluded in time for the second Division II Chancellors and Presidents Summit in June 2007. That meeting has been positioned as a follow-up to the first summit in 2005 that led to Division II’s strategic-positioning platform, the community-engagement initiative and the broadcast partnership with CSTV.