National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Fresh discussion possible after football votes
|
By David Pickle
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
ORLANDO, Florida — Two votes at the Association’s 101st annual Convention January 8 appeared to provide Division II with more direction on football-related issues, even if they did not identify the precise destination.
Delegates soundly defeated Proposal No. 7, which would have established two football classifications based on the number of equivalencies provided, by a count of 117-29-1 and passed Proposal No. 8, which will require a two-thirds majority vote (rather than a simple majority) to change financial aid equivalencies in the future. The vote on No. 8 was 130-125-1. Both proposals originated with the Division II Football Task Force after an 18-month examination of membership issues relating to football.
For now, the actions mean that the equivalency limit in football will remain at 36, a standard that seemingly will be more difficult to change because of the two-thirds requirement. However, individuals with various perspectives said that more action is needed.
“You can’t step back and not respond after you hear comments like those from Doug Kristensen (chancellor at the University of Nebraska at Kearney),” said Charles Ambrose, chair of the Division II Presidents Council. “We should continue this examination but maybe not seek to alter championships or make aggressive plays on equivalencies.”
In remarks to Convention delegates during debate on No. 7, Kristensen told delegates: “I noted in the educational video we saw earlier this morning the person who said he got goose bumps talking about Division II. I get goose bumps, too, but I get cold chills thinking about football west of the Missouri River” (where geographical and funding problems appear to be especially acute).
North Central Conference Commissioner Roger Thomas, who earlier crafted a proposal that would have “decoupled” football from other membership classification, and Task Force Chair Jerry McGee of Wingate University both appealed to the membership on the Convention floor to continue a constructive examination of various football issues. In that vein, the notion of regional bowl games got some early traction.
“The members spoke clearly about not wanting a second football classification, and they’ve spoken clearly in the past about equivalency reductions,” said Division II Vice President Mike Racy. “It may be time to look at other alternatives, something like regional bowl games that are apart from the playoff structure.” Ambrose and Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference Commissioner Steve Murray also mentioned using bowl games as a means to enhance postseason competition.
Still, it may be too early to bury the notion of future changes to equivalency limits. Delegates made a point of noting that the two-thirds requirement established by Proposal No. 8 can be modified by a simple majority, so that matter could be reconsidered at a future Convention, considering how tight the January 8 vote was. If that were to occur, then legislation for a relatively modest lowering of the football limit wouldn’t be out of the question.
But Murray said a recommendation to lower the limit would not be coming from him. Murray, whose conference co-sponsored a 2004 proposal to lower equivalency limits to 24, sounded a conciliatory note after the vote.
“What we were saying all along was that there never had been a broad study done on equivalency limits,” he said. “Now it’s been done, and it’s been done well. What we’re doing is fine for the division, although it doesn’t necessarily answer the question for the people on the fringes.”
That last part is where the challenge lies. The football terrain, though more stable than before, is still unsettled.
Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference Commissioner Tom Brown, a primary supporter of maintaining the current ceiling of 36 equivalencies, noted that this Convention made it clear that “most people didn’t want a watered-down version of the championship.”
As for the future, Brown said he wouldn’t be surprised if the division soon finds itself again debating the familiar issue of football equivalency ceilings.
“I still have some questions about whether we’ve seen the last of those kinds of things,” he said.
Delegates soundly defeated Proposal No. 7, which would have established two football classifications based on the number of equivalencies provided, by a count of 117-29-1 and passed Proposal No. 8, which will require a two-thirds majority vote (rather than a simple majority) to change financial aid equivalencies in the future. The vote on No. 8 was 130-125-1. Both proposals originated with the Division II Football Task Force after an 18-month examination of membership issues relating to football.
For now, the actions mean that the equivalency limit in football will remain at 36, a standard that seemingly will be more difficult to change because of the two-thirds requirement. However, individuals with various perspectives said that more action is needed.
“You can’t step back and not respond after you hear comments like those from Doug Kristensen (chancellor at the University of Nebraska at Kearney),” said Charles Ambrose, chair of the Division II Presidents Council. “We should continue this examination but maybe not seek to alter championships or make aggressive plays on equivalencies.”
In remarks to Convention delegates during debate on No. 7, Kristensen told delegates: “I noted in the educational video we saw earlier this morning the person who said he got goose bumps talking about Division II. I get goose bumps, too, but I get cold chills thinking about football west of the Missouri River” (where geographical and funding problems appear to be especially acute).
North Central Conference Commissioner Roger Thomas, who earlier crafted a proposal that would have “decoupled” football from other membership classification, and Task Force Chair Jerry McGee of Wingate University both appealed to the membership on the Convention floor to continue a constructive examination of various football issues. In that vein, the notion of regional bowl games got some early traction.
“The members spoke clearly about not wanting a second football classification, and they’ve spoken clearly in the past about equivalency reductions,” said Division II Vice President Mike Racy. “It may be time to look at other alternatives, something like regional bowl games that are apart from the playoff structure.” Ambrose and Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference Commissioner Steve Murray also mentioned using bowl games as a means to enhance postseason competition.
Still, it may be too early to bury the notion of future changes to equivalency limits. Delegates made a point of noting that the two-thirds requirement established by Proposal No. 8 can be modified by a simple majority, so that matter could be reconsidered at a future Convention, considering how tight the January 8 vote was. If that were to occur, then legislation for a relatively modest lowering of the football limit wouldn’t be out of the question.
But Murray said a recommendation to lower the limit would not be coming from him. Murray, whose conference co-sponsored a 2004 proposal to lower equivalency limits to 24, sounded a conciliatory note after the vote.
“What we were saying all along was that there never had been a broad study done on equivalency limits,” he said. “Now it’s been done, and it’s been done well. What we’re doing is fine for the division, although it doesn’t necessarily answer the question for the people on the fringes.”
That last part is where the challenge lies. The football terrain, though more stable than before, is still unsettled.
Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference Commissioner Tom Brown, a primary supporter of maintaining the current ceiling of 36 equivalencies, noted that this Convention made it clear that “most people didn’t want a watered-down version of the championship.”
As for the future, Brown said he wouldn’t be surprised if the division soon finds itself again debating the familiar issue of football equivalency ceilings.
“I still have some questions about whether we’ve seen the last of those kinds of things,” he said.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy