Division II is continuing to discuss whether the formula it uses to distribute enhancement funds to member schools matches the attributes in the division’s strategic-positioning platform.

The Division II Presidents Council generated the discussion last year, wondering specifically whether a prong of the formula that bases distributions on schools’ success in the men’s and women’s basketball tournaments is appropriate.

Planning and Finance Committee Chair Beverley Pitts, president at Indianapolis, led a presentation at the 2009 Division II business session at the Convention that asked members to submit alternatives, which have ranged from keeping the formula as it is to basing it more on academic success, athletics success beyond just basketball or initiatives that align with the division’s strategic plan.

The suggestions have been diverse enough to convince Pitts and others that more study is necessary.

“Among the most important things is to create a system that can actually be enforced. Although many ideas sound wonderful, when you try to implement them in a fair way, it’s nearly impossible,” she said. “I just don’t think we have enough ideas that have been refined or played out to make sure there aren’t any unintended consequences.”

One idea that has been suggested is to simply eliminate the basketball prong and fold those distributions into the other two prongs (an equal distribution and another based on the number of championships conferences sponsor).

“It doesn’t make sense for our division to have a distribution dependent on basketball performance,” said Grand Valley State Athletics Director Tim Selgo, who proposed the concept during the Planning and Finance Committee’s April meeting. “Eliminating the prong altogether is definitely something that needs to be on the table.”

The enhancement fund was created in the early 1990s as a result of the NCAA’s television rights agreement with CBS Sports. The original $3 million fund was distributed to Division II conferences based on their teams’ performances in the men’s basketball tournament (a model borrowed from Division I), with the remainder divided equally among Division II member institutions.

In 2000-01, the Planning and Finance Committee added women’s basketball to the basketball-specific prong of the distribution and added a third prong based on the number of championships conferences sponsor.

As the appointed stewards of how the Division II budget aligns with the division’s strategic plan, Planning and Finance Committee members are now leading the review of whether the basketball prong is consistent with a strategic plan that emphasizes broad-based athletics success and a well-rounded educational experience.

“We are not close at all to determining the best method at this time,” Pitts said. “We need to first determine whether it can be done at all – can you account for the kinds of alignment you’re after? We will continue to review and seek input. But just as we’ve adjusted the conference grant program to align more with the platform, so too do we want the enhancement-fund formula to reflect the attributes and values presented in the platform.”

If a change is made, it would be a phased-in approach, Pitts said.

“It’s the committee’s job to listen to stakeholders and make sure that we don’t hurt institutions or conferences in thinking of a new model, but also recognize the desire among many constituencies in Division II to link the distribution formula more closely with the platform,” she said.

Pitts suggested a trial run of whatever alternative is agreed upon – if any – that could be tweaked as unintended consequences are identified.

“The bottom line is that we’re looking for ways to support conferences and institutions in the direction that the strategic plan takes us. Competition is certainly part of that, but so are a whole lot of other things in terms of our student-athletes. Thinking of how these ideas would work and ensuring fairness is the next big step,” Pitts said.

Whatever is decided won’t take effect until after 2010. The Planning and Finance Committee in fact at its last meeting – given that it had not decided on whether to change the formula – voted to distribute a scheduled $300,000 increase in the fund for 2010 as a one-time allocation divided equally among Division II member schools.

The distribution will occur in May 2010, based on Division II membership as of September 1, 2009. No restrictions will be placed on how institutions use the allocation.

The Planning and Finance Committee next meets in August.