The Division II Membership Committee dealt with two reclassification issues at its November 10 meeting – one regarding incoming members and another for potential outgoing schools. 

Regarding incoming members, committee members approved a policy that enables either current Division I members or Division II members that are reclassifying to Division I but change their minds to achieve active Division II status in as little as one year.

The Division II Presidents Council had asked the committee to consider a streamlined process for Division II members that have recently reclassified to Division I or are in the process of reclassifying to have a safe landing in Division II if they decide that’s where they belong.

The Membership Committee decided to expand the pool to any Division I member wishing to reclassify as long as they complete the one-year process to ensure compliance with Division II legislative requirements.

That decision came after debate over whether incoming members from Division I would have a competitive advantage over their Division II counterparts when it comes to earning championships berths.

Some committee members speculated that the institutions seeking re-entry – especially those that had begun the reclassification process and realized it was in their best interests to remain affiliated with Division II – would not have had enough time to build a decided competitive advantage. Other members, though, argued that because those institutions would have been recruiting and signing Division I-caliber athletes, they should be subject to a waiting period before being eligible for Division II championships.

The problem with that is that a championship delay might discourage institutions from making what for them would be an appropriate affiliation decision.

In the end, the Membership Committee agreed that any Division I member – whether an active member or aspirational one – should be able to go through the same expedited reclassification process that is afforded to those former Division II members that are reclassifying but reverse their decision.

The committee also voted to include reclassifying members from Division I as among the 30 institutions that can be in the Division II membership process at a given time.

New Division I standards

The other Division I-related issue the Division II Membership Committee reviewed is the new membership package Division I is considering. To prepare for the end of the division’s membership moratorium in August 2011, the Division I Leadership Council has proposed a series of standards that prospective institutions must meet, including one requiring institutions to have been active members of Division II for five years before being considered as potential Division I members.

That concerned a few Division II Membership Committee members who believe the criterion positions Division II as a “minor league” for Division I membership. They worry that it runs counter to Division II’s identity campaign and enhanced membership standards that establish the division as a “membership destination” and combat what several years ago had been an alarming number of Division II schools seeking to reclassify to Division I.

They also are concerned that the Membership Committee will be put in the position of evaluating prospective Division II members that are interested in Division II membership only as a “pass-through” to Division I.

Molloy College President Drew Bogner, who will chair the Division II Presidents Council after the 2010 Convention and who is that group’s representative on the Membership Committee, said while the concerns are legitimate, they shouldn’t affect how the committee evaluates whether prospective institutions are legitimate Division II members.

“Ultimately, this is Division I’s call as to what it wants its membership criteria to be,” Bogner said. “All we can do as a committee is to demand that applicants exhibit Division II’s distinctive attributes, such as a commitment to a balanced college experience and a commitment to the community-engagement and game-environment initiatives.

“Schools may have aspirations of being Division I, but they have to be Division II first. The Division II Membership Committee has to ensure that Division II members are true to what we say we are as a division without worrying about being perceived as a pipeline to Division I.”

Current Management Council chair Tim Selgo, who also attended the Membership Committee meeting, said the five-year requirement might also work in Division II’s favor since it would give institutions adequate time to be comfortable with being a Division II member. 

“Five years may be long enough for reasonable people to realize that Division II is where they belong,” he said.