National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Membership panel supports influx from north of border
|
By Gary T. Brown
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
When the NCAA Executive Committee authorized a pilot program in January that allows a limited number of Canadian four-year colleges or universities to begin the process for becoming NCAA member institutions, Division II was expected to be among the most supportive constituents.
Count the Division II Membership Committee in. At its February 19-21 meeting in Indianapolis, the panel recommended that the Management and Presidents Councils sponsor enabling legislation at the 2008 Convention that puts the wheels in motion for interested Canadian schools.
“The legislation would allow us to study the feasibility of international membership, primarily Canadian schools, that would help stabilize our membership numbers and infrastructure, particularly in the Northwest region,” said Membership Committee Chair Jim Johnson, athletics director at Texas A&M University-Commerce.
The Executive Committee plan calls for a 10-year pilot program, after which an Association-wide working group would review recommendations from each division and determine whether it should be expanded to include additional Canadian institutions. To date, the NCAA has not received formal interest from schools in other countries.
Johnson said the legislative proposal would be crafted to relax the current requirement that Division II members be from the United States or its territories. The timing is right, he said, since at the 2007 Convention Division II adopted a new membership process that better ensures new members’ compliance with Division II’s strategic-positioning platform. The process requires new or reclassifying members to complete a two-year exploratory period, followed by at least one year of provisional membership.
“The consideration of membership from Canadian institutions fits with that process, which gives us some latitude in moving forward,” said Johnson, who recently was announced as Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association Commissioner Ralph McFillen’s successor, effective in June.
Division II is the first to push for the enabling legislation to kick-start the pilot program. While the Executive Committee established a 10-year assessment window, that doesn’t mean a Canadian school couldn’t become an active NCAA member earlier. Division II Vice President Mike Racy said Division II would treat an application from a Canadian school the same as from a domestic school, putting the institution through the new two-year exploratory process and perhaps as short as a one-year provisional term.
If Division II adopts the legislation in January, a Canadian school could become an active Division II member as early as 2011. Under parameters of the Executive Committee pilot program, that means a Canadian school could be an NCAA member for the remaining seven years of the 10-year assessment period.
“That would give the Association-wide working group, the divisional membership committees and the Executive Committee plenty of time to assess the success of international membership,” Racy said. “The 10-year assessment is tied to the study of the pilot program and has nothing to do with the length of time that a school would have to go through our new process to achieve active membership status.”
Membership committee member Dave Brunk, who also chairs the Division II Management Council, said the action once again positions Division II as a leader in new initiatives. “It shows an active approach that aligns with our growth initiatives,” said the Northeast-10 Conference commissioner.
Brunk said several details would have to be addressed as the Canadian schools progress through the membership process, but that it was important for the concept to gain momentum first.
“I feel confident that the Councils will support the concept to allow the initiative to get underway,” he said. “We would still have to work through some issues, such as with visas, travel, different playing seasons, educational models, progress toward degree and financial aid, but the most important thing is to initiate some dialog between interested institutions and the membership committee — or a task force assembled to work through those issues.”
The matter of international membership in the NCAA has Division II roots. In 1998, a Canadian institution sought entrance into the division, but a proposal to facilitate the process at the 1999 Convention was ruled out of order because it applied to a single division rather than Association-wide.
A second Canadian school recently expressed interest, which led the Executive Committee to establish a working group in April 2006 to study the feasibility of international membership and its effect on the Association as a whole rather than on a single division.
Selection criteria
In another membership action, the committee determined that institutions that attain provisional status under the new membership process may count for strength-of-schedule and in-region win/loss requirements for Division II active members.
Currently, Division II teams can’t count those criteria from provisional schools until they are in their second year of provisional membership. Brunk said, though, with the new membership process that places an educational and compliance premium on the two-year exploratory period, institutions will be better prepared to meet Division II standards sooner than later in the provisional stage.
“With the additional assessments we have built into the new membership process, institutions that seek Division II status won’t be invited to become active members until they demonstrate the ability to meet standards,” he said. “Because of the more stringent evaluation earlier in the process, the committee believes schools should be ready by the end of the two-year exploratory window and should be counted in the championships criteria right away.”
February 19-21/Indianapolis
Count the Division II Membership Committee in. At its February 19-21 meeting in Indianapolis, the panel recommended that the Management and Presidents Councils sponsor enabling legislation at the 2008 Convention that puts the wheels in motion for interested Canadian schools.
“The legislation would allow us to study the feasibility of international membership, primarily Canadian schools, that would help stabilize our membership numbers and infrastructure, particularly in the Northwest region,” said Membership Committee Chair Jim Johnson, athletics director at Texas A&M University-Commerce.The Executive Committee plan calls for a 10-year pilot program, after which an Association-wide working group would review recommendations from each division and determine whether it should be expanded to include additional Canadian institutions. To date, the NCAA has not received formal interest from schools in other countries.
Johnson said the legislative proposal would be crafted to relax the current requirement that Division II members be from the United States or its territories. The timing is right, he said, since at the 2007 Convention Division II adopted a new membership process that better ensures new members’ compliance with Division II’s strategic-positioning platform. The process requires new or reclassifying members to complete a two-year exploratory period, followed by at least one year of provisional membership.
“The consideration of membership from Canadian institutions fits with that process, which gives us some latitude in moving forward,” said Johnson, who recently was announced as Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association Commissioner Ralph McFillen’s successor, effective in June.
Division II is the first to push for the enabling legislation to kick-start the pilot program. While the Executive Committee established a 10-year assessment window, that doesn’t mean a Canadian school couldn’t become an active NCAA member earlier. Division II Vice President Mike Racy said Division II would treat an application from a Canadian school the same as from a domestic school, putting the institution through the new two-year exploratory process and perhaps as short as a one-year provisional term.
If Division II adopts the legislation in January, a Canadian school could become an active Division II member as early as 2011. Under parameters of the Executive Committee pilot program, that means a Canadian school could be an NCAA member for the remaining seven years of the 10-year assessment period.
“That would give the Association-wide working group, the divisional membership committees and the Executive Committee plenty of time to assess the success of international membership,” Racy said. “The 10-year assessment is tied to the study of the pilot program and has nothing to do with the length of time that a school would have to go through our new process to achieve active membership status.”
Membership committee member Dave Brunk, who also chairs the Division II Management Council, said the action once again positions Division II as a leader in new initiatives. “It shows an active approach that aligns with our growth initiatives,” said the Northeast-10 Conference commissioner.Brunk said several details would have to be addressed as the Canadian schools progress through the membership process, but that it was important for the concept to gain momentum first.
“I feel confident that the Councils will support the concept to allow the initiative to get underway,” he said. “We would still have to work through some issues, such as with visas, travel, different playing seasons, educational models, progress toward degree and financial aid, but the most important thing is to initiate some dialog between interested institutions and the membership committee — or a task force assembled to work through those issues.”
The matter of international membership in the NCAA has Division II roots. In 1998, a Canadian institution sought entrance into the division, but a proposal to facilitate the process at the 1999 Convention was ruled out of order because it applied to a single division rather than Association-wide.
A second Canadian school recently expressed interest, which led the Executive Committee to establish a working group in April 2006 to study the feasibility of international membership and its effect on the Association as a whole rather than on a single division.
Selection criteria
In another membership action, the committee determined that institutions that attain provisional status under the new membership process may count for strength-of-schedule and in-region win/loss requirements for Division II active members.
Currently, Division II teams can’t count those criteria from provisional schools until they are in their second year of provisional membership. Brunk said, though, with the new membership process that places an educational and compliance premium on the two-year exploratory period, institutions will be better prepared to meet Division II standards sooner than later in the provisional stage.
“With the additional assessments we have built into the new membership process, institutions that seek Division II status won’t be invited to become active members until they demonstrate the ability to meet standards,” he said. “Because of the more stringent evaluation earlier in the process, the committee believes schools should be ready by the end of the two-year exploratory window and should be counted in the championships criteria right away.”
Other highlights
Division II Membership Committee
February 19-21/Indianapolis
- Recommended to the Management and Presidents Councils the educational fee required for schools that are advancing from exploratory to provisional status in the new membership process. The Councils will decide on the recommended fee in April.
- Selected vendors to administer the on-campus assessment component of the new membership process. Per the legislation adopted at the 2007 Convention, an outside group will conduct objective assessments of a provisional institution’s readiness to become an active Division II member. The Division II Membership Committee emphasized that the outside vendors are the “eyes and ears” of the committee, rather than a panel designed to advise schools on compliance.
- Agreed to permit schools to combine their minimum financial aid and sports-sponsorship reports into one document online.
- Approved Claflin University’s application to advance to year two of the provisional process.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy