It is fair to say that I care more about Division II football than most people. I believe in the division to such an extent that I devote anywhere from 10 to 16 hours a day working on my Web site, D2Football.com. Any issue affecting Division II football also affects me.

Currently, several issues are affecting the division.

For one, the Division II Management Council is constantly looking at establishing a marketable identity that best represents Division II. Even the Council would admit that it struggles with the issue.

There is a good reason for that.

Everyone’s view of Division II is influenced by what they see every day. Fans of Grand Valley State, for example, think Division II should accommodate schools with enrollments of more than 20,000 and athletics budgets of more than $6 million. But their counterparts at Panhandle State most likely think Grand Valley is too big. They might view Division II as the ideal place for schools with about 1,000 students and budgets of less than $1 million.

How many times has a coach been quoted as saying after facing a great player, “That player doesn’t belong in Division II”? While discussing the football facility of a North Central Conference team, a commissioner from another conference once told me, “That’s not a Division II facility.” But the fact remains: If that player is playing Division II, or a Division II institution owns the facility, both are Division II.

Because all teams and schools are not the same, the case is usually made that some teams should move to a lower division, while those schools counter with the belief that a dominant team should move to a higher division.

The fact is that Division II is diverse. Some think it’s too diverse.  I believe those individuals do not see the big picture. In fact, I believe the diversity of the membership should be considered a strength for Division II.

The National Football League is the organization that best maintains equality among teams.  But even in the NFL, huge differences exist among franchises. In Division I, there is a huge difference between the nearly $80 million budget at Texas and other Division I schools that have a budget of $3.5 million.

Division II is no different than any configuration of teams. Some have more money than others and some have better facilities. It is unreasonable to expect every situation to be identical.

If scholarships are reduced, certain schools still will have better facilities. Some will develop better academic support systems. Coaches’ salaries at some schools help entice better coaches. I doubt that coaches from one area of the country would support legislation to limit the amount their peers in another area of the country could earn. Likewise, it is unfathomable that schools from one area could dictate the scope of fund-raising and facility construction at schools in another.

Advantages and disadvantages always will exist.

Some very good institutions have left Division II recently for a variety of reasons, including the ones previously mentioned. No matter the reasons, the fact is that every time a standout member of the division leaves, the rest of the division is harmed.

Recently, North Dakota State, a former Division II power with numerous football titles, moved to Division I. Northern Colorado, despite only being able to fund at very low levels at Division I, has made the jump as well. The Fargo, North Dakota, metropolitan area has a population of more than 100,000 people. Greeley, Colorado, has a population of more than 75,000. Those are heavy losses to Division II football, resulting in fewer people demanding national Division II coverage and fewer people to whom to market the division. Add in recent departures such as South Dakota State, UC Davis and Portland State, and it makes Division II less attractive to media outlets like ESPN and even D2Football.com. It also diminishes Division II influence in Association-wide matters.

There is a growing momentum to divide Division II into two divisions for football. Athletics aid is, without a doubt, the issue that causes the most divisiveness among Division II schools. Despite the fact that a proposal to reduce aid failed by a 2-to-1 margin, the conferences that proposed the reduction — the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference and the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference — can be counted on to bring the issue to the forefront again.

Many concessions already have been made to the schools that favor reduction. The regions were realigned to better distribute teams. The Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, a power in football, was moved into a different region. That left the Northeast region without a single team that has won a national championship and put North Dakota and Grand Valley State, schools that have won four of the last five, in the same region. At the same time, 18 of the 46 schools that voted for a reduction are in the same region, clearly throwing a competitive imbalance toward those that voted for reduction.

Also, as an additional concession to those wanting to reduce aid, a new rule was passed that allows every conference to be represented in the playoffs as long as a team from that conference was ranked in the top 10 in the region.

Despite those concessions, schools that have benefited are not satisfied. It is hoped that a split in Division II would finally satisfy those that want to “pull others down to their level.”

Originally, a Division II split was seen as a chance to increase the aid beyond the current level of 36 for the higher level of Division II. After discussion with several administrators, that possibility does not seem likely. The most logical number appears to be 18 for the lower level.

Division I-AA has a cap that is 74 percent of the Division I maximum. Division II has a cap that is 57 percent of the Division I-AA maximum. If the 17 percent decrease for each level were maintained, Division II’s lower-aid grouping would have a maximum of 14 equivalencies. However, simply taking 50 percent of the Division II maximum of 36 to derive a lower-level maximum of 18 makes more sense and would give teams more flexibility. Not requiring scholarship floors for either division would help keep conferences together.

If Division II were to be split based upon those who voted for and those who voted against the latest scholarship reduction, about 100 teams would be competing in the higher-aid grouping and about 50 competing with other lower-aid programs. Not only would that give current Division II teams flexibility as to which football division they played in, it is possible that many NCAA-viable teams currently competing elsewhere would encouraged to make the jump to Division II. Adding even 50 teams would make Division II more marketable and more powerful within the NCAA.

While the proposed split was done to appease those that want to reduce scholarships, there are opponents of the split on both sides.

Those who fund at a high level want to keep Division II as one unified division. Even those who fund at the lower level, at least publicly, say that they want one unified division, too. Privately, though, the coaches who voted to maintain one unified division say a division more in line with their level of funding is enticing.

However, both sides want to bully the other into accepting their version of Division II football. The fully funded teams, and maybe rightfully so, contend they have made enough concessions and it is time for all teams to play by the current rules. Some of the teams that fund in the range of 24 equivalencies do not like the limit of 18 because they, in an ironic twist, do not want to reduce the level at which they fund.

No matter how the division is split, the requirement would be that the number of playoff participants remains the same to control costs and continue the gender balance within Division II championship participants. That means participation in the playoffs is limited to 24 teams.

Therefore, based on the two-thirds/one-third Convention vote ratio, the higher-aid grouping would have a 16-team bracket and the lower-aid programs would have an eight-team bracket. If ESPN were forced to make a choice, the more highly funded division would be the natural choice for the televised championship game.

A split of Division II into two separate championship brackets will help Division II grow and prosper by enabling funding levels to remain at current levels and by potentially increasing Division II membership.

Unfortunately, the desire by some to reduce the aid has caused some viable and historically important Division II teams to leave for Division I. The threat of further reductions has caused many of them to make the jump and has prompted some current teams to consider the jump. Reduction in aid, even the threat of reduction in aid, is something that has the potential to tear Division II football apart.

While a drastic change in the division may be the goal of some, making their road to a championship easier, it is certainly not the goal of anyone who wants the division to prosper. Many hope that a split would pacify those who wish to reduce aid.

A way to define what a Division II team or program is like will never exist. It is fluid. Perception changes over time. It can improve. It could diminish. It is important that the perception of Division II be that of a division looking to improve and expand, not reduce and contract.

Brandon Misener administers the Web site D2Football.com.