The Division II Membership Committee refined the minimum requirements that prospective members must meet before additional criteria are applied when the number of qualified applicants exceeds the number of available slots.

The enhanced criteria are part of an ongoing need to strengthen and clarify membership standards as the division becomes more of a membership destination. With a streamlined membership process having been approved at the 2007 Convention and with more applicants having become accustomed to meeting new standards the Membership Committee has adopted, the division is attracting more prepared applicants than before to move into Division II membership.

That has prompted the Membership Committee to prepare for scenarios in which the number of qualified applicants could exceed the number of institutions that can be in the membership process at a given time. The Membership Committee wants that number to be no more than 30 in a rolling, three-year period (the time it takes for an applicant to move into active status).

At its November 10 meeting in Indianapolis, the committee approved a revised set of minimum requirements that prospective schools must meet even before being considered, as well as a number of “distinguishing factors” should the division attract more applicants than it can accommodate in a given year.

“What the Membership Committee is doing is not unlike the procedures institutions have to adopt with admissions standards or that search committees follow when hiring personnel,” said committee chair Glenn Stokes, faculty athletics representative at Columbus State. “As prospective schools become more familiar with the minimum requirements – and more proficient at meeting them – we may well have years down the road in which we have more qualified candidates than slots available. In those cases, it is necessary for our committee to review other criteria to distinguish those schools.”

Among those additional distinguishing criteria are graduation rates and all-sports rankings. Committee members also could turn to a prospective school’s commitment to various Division II strategic initiatives such as community engagement and game environment.

Conference affiliation also could be a factor. Committee members added a standard for prospective schools to at least have a plan for joining a conference when they apply for Division II membership.

“All of these additional evaluation criteria essentially serve as ‘tiebreakers’ in the process,” Stokes said. “They don’t necessarily rise to the level of being required minimum standards, but they are important in an evaluation of whether the institution is a good fit with Division II principles and philosophy.”

In that vein, the Membership Committee discussed whether the additional criteria should in fact be among the minimum standards. Committee members considered the idea, knowing that “additional criteria” may not earn the attention the committee desires.

However, because questions regarding the additional criteria appear in the application materials, committee members believed those areas would be addressed while still being available as a tiebreaker (without being a minimum standard).

“We’re looking for those criteria to adopt as minimum standards that are essential in operating an effective and competitive Division II athletics program,” Stokes said. “In effect, it would not be in the committee’s best interests to adopt every area as a minimum requirement, since there would then be no distinguishing factors in a large applicant pool.

“We believe these additional components offer the committee that kind of insight to make difficult decisions.”

Minimum standards

The additional criteria join a newly revised set of minimum standards that the committee also reviewed during its November 10 meeting.

They include the following areas:

• Analysis/Feasibility Study (ensuring that the institution has conducted a campus-wide assessment of whether the athletics program fits the Division II philosophy)
• Demonstrated Athletics History (ensuring that the applicant has been offering an athletics program at the varsity level for a minimum of one academic year before submitting an application)
• Strategic Plan (outlining goals and priorities, associated timeline and commitment of financial and personnel resources)
• Financial Model (demonstrating that the school administers its intercollegiate athletics program with prudent management and fiscal practices to ensure financial stability, including sufficient operating and travel budgets)
• Personnel and Staff (demonstrating that the institution has existing personnel to operate the intercollegiate athletics program at the Division II level, including a full-time director of athletics and a full-time administrator whose primary responsibility is compliance and  who does not have coaching responsibilities)
• Sports Sponsorship (ensuring compliance with Division II minimum sports-sponsorship requirements and the three-season requirement at the time of application)
• Athletically Related Financial Aid (ensuring compliance with Division II financial aid requirements)
• Facilities (demonstrating adequate facilities to support a Division II athletics program)

The Membership Committee first developed these minimum standards last spring but revised them at its recent meeting based on feedback from various constituents. The revisions included a clarification that the strategic plan must be approved by the school’s governance structure and evidence that the plan will be implemented.

The committee also emphasized that each year’s applicant pool is evaluated on its own merit. Institutions that applied previously and were not invited into the membership process should not assume that subsequent applications will succeed.