Former Iowa Women’s Athletics Director Christine Grant praised Division II for its fair treatment of male and female student-athletes when it comes to fully funding programs and allocating recruiting dollars equitably, but she told chancellors and presidents that the division has work to do when it comes to providing athletics participation opportunities for women.

“If I were to summarize the challenge for Division II in one sentence, I would say the major problem facing institutions is the lack of compliance in participation opportunities for women,” Grant told a group of Presidents Council members and conference board officers Wednesday.  

Grant, currently a consultant for Sports Management Resources and a longtime authority on Title IX, noted that Division II currently has the widest disparity between the percentage of female students (57 percent) and the percentage of female athletics participation opportunities (41 percent) of the three NCAA divisions.

“The good news for Division II is that you are the best division regarding the treatment of male and female student-athletes,” Grant said, “but there has been very little progress in increasing opportunities over the last eight years.”

Noting that the Obama administration might be more favorably inclined to enforce Title IX than the previous Bush administration, Grant asked presidents to become more involved with reviewing overall participation opportunities on their campuses. She pointed out, for example, that despite Division II scholarship limits that restrict football teams to 36 equivalencies, the average roster size of Division II teams is 97 male student-athletes.

While Grant acknowledged that few football coaches would volunteer to reduce roster sizes on their own for fear of falling behind competitively, she called for Division II to consider a collective approach that would trim squad limits in certain men’s sports and perhaps add opportunities in women’s sports.

“Schools think it may be easier to resolve this issue unilaterally, but it’s actually much better to approach it collectively,” Grant said. “As a division, you can reduce the number of participants without individual institutions making decisions that cause them to lose sports entirely.”

Grant also advocated that presidents appoint a Title IX coordinator on their campus outside of the athletics department to oversee compliance. She also recommended a campus-wide gender-equity committee to oversee annual date collection to monitor progress toward equal opportunity.

The discussion appeared to energize many presidents in the crowd who already are looking for better business models in athletics that could reduce the fiscal pressures on institutions. One president in fact wanted it noted for the record that Division II should include a collective squad-size proposal with whatever package emerges from the division’s playing and practice season (Bylaw 17) review.

Financial dashboards and the ISSG

In addition to Grant’s presentation, the Division II presidents talked about two initiatives that could be on the table at the next Division II Chancellors and Presidents Summit in June 2010. One is an effort being developed to provide more accurate financial data upon which to make informed decisions about athletics expenditures.

Similar to the “dashboard indicators” project recently rolled out in Division I, the collection concerns financial data that go beyond the EADA requirements and more accurately distinguish revenue and expenses that are either “generated” by the athletics department or “allocated” by the institution or other sources. The concept has been an effective decision-making tool for Division I presidents, since it allows them to compare their own institutional athletics expenditures with peer groups divided by conference affiliation, public/private, or percentiles according to budget size (among many other dashboard categories).

Individual institutional data are kept confidential in such comparisons (data are provided in aggregate form).

The Division II presidents at the Wednesday meeting seemed intrigued with the dashboard concept, though they acknowledged that the diversity of the Division II membership may make it challenging to collect comprehensive data from which to assemble a workable database. However, most see the value of trying.

Some also noted that the division already has developed and rolled out its financial simulation model that helps schools understand the value of the division’s partial-scholarship system for athletics and how that can actually boost an institution’s overall bottom line. That project relied on a healthy submission of financial data as well, so presidents and other campus leaders likely will be familiar with whatever is requested from a dashboard project.

The other potential item for the 2010 summit is a review of whether the Division II Institutional Self-Study Guide should be codified to achieve broader outcomes.

Originally developed as a compliance tool to help institutions operate their athletics programs in accordance with NCAA bylaws, governance groups over time have added more philosophical or strategic areas to the document such as gender-equity and diversity concerns, hiring practices, and implementing initiatives related to the division’s strategic plan.

Some people believe the additions – certainly warranted as items that improve athletics operations – have caused the ISSG to become unwieldy and overly cumbersome. They also argue that the groups typically assembled by the president or chancellor to complete the ISSG, such as athletics personnel, the registrar’s office and financial-aid officials, aren’t always positioned to adequately answer questions about the more philosophical areas.

Presidents Council member Ernest McNealy of Stillman College led a presentation that recommended separating the ISSG into two evaluative tools – one that would return the ISSG to its compliance roots and deal strictly with legislative requirements (the “doing things right” component), and another that covers the philosophical and strategic areas (“the right things to do” component). The ISSG would continue to be completed once every five years, while the other review tool could be more frequently assessed.

“We are still early in this discussion,” McNealey said. “And suggesting that items be separated by no means implies that some areas are more important than others. The point is that by clarifying the purpose and scope of the ISSG, we will strengthen its use and lessen the chance for misinterpretation.”

Division II will continue to discuss both the ISSG and dashboard efforts and decide whether they belong on the 2010 summit agenda.