Charles Ambrose, president at Pfeiffer University and chair of the Division II Presidents Council, discusses Division II issues for 2007:

Q The Division II Presidents Council developed a strategic-positioning platform that explains the values of Division II membership, points out the division’s key attributes and incorporates a visual campaign to give Division II a unique identity within the NCAA parent brand. The 2005 chancellors and presidents summit was a benchmark in the strategic-positioning initiative since summit participants commissioned a comprehensive study that defined what Division II was all about. How has the summit and the subsequent strategic-positioning platform changed the way Division II members feel about themselves?

A Two forces were at work when we gathered in 2005. One was a sense of defining ourselves by what we are not (neither the Division I nor the Division III model), and the other was a realization of our attributes and distinctive characteristics. We wanted to state those attributes clearly and concisely and with a unified voice that described what is best about Division II.

That naturally led the Presidents Council to launch a major branding initiative that helped clarify what Division II is. That initiative, which prompted the strategic-positioning platform, allowed us to think aggressively and not defensively, not only at the division level, but also in transforming the way we think about our conferences, our regional philosophy and how we strengthen the identity of our own athletics programs on campus. In my mind we were standing at the starting block, because building the platform and developing the community-engagement initiative represents the foundational work that allows us not only to build the Division II story but to tell it.

Q Among Division II’s defining characteristics is its strong relationship with the communities in which campuses are located. The Presidents Council is supporting legislation at the 2007 Convention that would suspend existing recruiting and student-athlete-benefit rules to allow institutions more flexibility in their community-engagement initiatives. Some members, however, are concerned that the proposal creates a potential for some schools to gain a competitive or recruiting advantage. How would you address those concerns?

A We are actually going to change the way in which we govern the active engagement of campus and community and remove the barriers that had been embedded in current legislation that was built from a competitive-equity perspective. When you articulate it that way, people understand that we’re not changing the core legislation, but suspending it when it doesn’t make sense to apply it. Nothing in the proposal changes a recruitment practice or policy. It simply allows for the engagement of student-athletes and coaches in activities that may include members of the community who one day could be recruits.

The concerns regarding the potential for unfair advantage or abuse are fairly natural reactions to change. The Council all along has acknowledged the need to develop a sense of trust and empowerment. We’re also realistic enough to know that this could have some unintended consequences. We’re dynamic enough of a division that if things need adjustment, we can address those concerns in the future. But if I were to prognosticate, I would anticipate more institutions will embrace rather than resist the freeing of opportunities.

Q Two other important Division II proposals at the 2007 Convention deal with the level of resources devoted to athletics scholarships. One seeks to establish two championship brackets for football, and the other requires a two-thirds-majority vote to change equivalency limits in any sport. The Presidents Council has supported both measures as a way to unify the division, yet the debate both proposals have stirred has at times been divisive. Explain the Council’s position.

A Both proposals are forward-thinking measures that honor the commitment we made two years ago after the proposal to reduce equivalencies in football from 36 to 24 was defeated. That action was not as drastic as some are now saying — the reason the proposal was defeated was that the membership thought the reduction to 24 was too severe and the Presidents Council had promised to find a compromise or an alternative proposal. Through the Football Task Force, we have just that. What will be presented at the Convention is what we think is in fact the best path for Division II. Coupled with the two-thirds-majority vote, it gives us the opportunity to at least put some certainty on what our maximum equivalencies would be in football and all other sports.

Q A success story in the past year is Division II’s partnership with CSTV, which has provided live, national broadcast exposure for Division II football and basketball programs. What is the future of the CSTV agreement and how has it affected Division II?

A The partnership with CSTV helps accomplish one of the primary objectives we developed at the 2005 summit — to build stronger community engagement and broader regional awareness. The broadcasts offer a wonderful platform to tell the Division II story, and then we couple that with the broadband option that allows conferences and institutions to tell their own stories to a constituency that has ready-made access to those games, regardless of whether their cable packages include CSTV. It also comes with a membership benefit in that it is prompting institutions to make decisions on things like band width and hardware that positions them to have full access to those tools.

Q In recent years, Division II membership has been impacted by members changing divisional affiliation, most often to Division I. How does the Convention proposal that strengthens membership provisions for provisional and reclassifying institutions address that concern?

A I see the legislation as an opportunity to transition from being simply a membership gatekeeper to being an active enabler. This legislation is meant to help those who aspire to be Division II to be successful once they join. It front-ends a lot of the responsibility to the institutions, so that they are equipped and prepared to be competitive and successful in whatever their objectives may be, and it is meant to provide clarity of process. When you put the membership process together with some of the benefits of Division II membership, we’re creating an alignment that helps ensure a more successful experience.