The Division II membership will make two of the most important decisions in its history when it meets January 8 in Orlando. The first decision involves whether we will establish a second football playoff, and the second relates to whether we will change the voting requirement to modify financial aid limits in any sport.

As chair of the Football Task Force that made these recommendations, I have followed the reaction to these proposals with interest and, occasionally, concern. Because these topics have generated so much emotion — and, in some cases, misinformation — I believe that the membership needs to be reminded about the reasoning that led to their consideration.

Most of those who follow Division II issues know that the task force was formed in the wake of 2005 Proposal No. 28, which would have reduced the number of financial aid equivalencies in football from 36 to 24. The sponsors of that proposal, the Pennsylvania State and Rocky Mountain Athletic Conferences, said that the financial environments in their regions prevent their programs from fully funding football and that they cannot compete with programs that do provide the maximum.

The 2005 proposal failed by a vote of 46-97, a result that some observers say illustrates Division II’s lack of desire to reduce football equivalency limits.

I am confident that Proposal No. 28 would have failed under any circumstances. The proposed cut from 36 to 24 was simply too drastic for the membership to accept. But it’s important to remember that the vote on Proposal No. 28 was taken after the Division II Presidents Council provided assurances that a task force would examine postseason football issues and provide an alternative to severe cuts in equivalency limits. Those who now say that Division II opposed a reduction in football financial aid limits by a 2-1 margin at the 2005 Convention are not revealing the complete context of that vote. Here’s the real takeaway: The division voted down a particularly aggressive proposal after examination of another option was assured. You can be certain that the 2005 vote would have been much closer if the Presidents Council had not agreed to further examine the issue or if the proposed reduction had been more moderate.

Backed by its charge from the Presidents Council,

the Football Task Force engaged in difficult discussions over the next year and a half, eventually recommending that Division II:

• Create two Division II football championships. The first would be for programs that fund up to 36 equivalencies; the other would be for programs that fund no more than 50 percent of the maximum (that is, 0 to 18 equivalencies).
• Require that changes to financial aid equivalencies in any Division II sport must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Convention. The Presidents Council shares the belief of the Football Task Force that financial aid limits are so important to the stability of the membership that modifications to them should require more than a simple majority vote.

The task force worked hard to identify approaches that would not divide Division II football. I still believe that a proposal to "decouple" football from the traditional division structure was an excellent idea, and I would not be surprised if the concept reappears several years down the line. However, Division I-AA was not enthusiastic about the proposal, and that discussion was terminated for now.

That left the task force to find a solution within Division II. Simply stated, the options were to identify a reduction in financial aid limits that both large and small programs could accept or to create a playoff structure that could accommodate both types of programs. It quickly became apparent that the first task was impossible, so we focused on modifying the playoff system.

The purpose of the two-bracket approach is simple. We are seeking to create an environment in which football student-athletes at smaller programs will have a reasonable chance to compete for postseason rewards and a national championship. At the same time, we do not want to reduce financial aid opportunities at the programs that choose to fully fund their football programs.

It’s that simple. You can agree or disagree with the premise, but there’s nothing devious about it.

Unfortunately, some of the commentary in the Web world and at various meetings has produced more heat than light. Here are a few recent misrepresentations that I’ve noted:

• Some critics have said that the PSAC is the driving force behind the two-bracket proposal. That simply is not true, unless you believe that the 2005 Convention legislation directly resulted in the proposal that is now under consideration. Both the PSAC and RMAC were represented on the task force (as was every other Division II conference), but neither one submitted a two-bracket proposal for consideration. Instead, the proposal emerged through consensus as a rather obvious alternative after the recommendation to "decouple" football from division classification fell apart.
• Some have noted, incorrectly, that we are creating a Division II-A and a II-AA. I understand the assumption since people are so familiar with the Division I model. But let me assure you that the task force has no intention to subdivide Division II. Instead, our mission will be to maintain a single level of football for conference membership, scheduling, rankings and so on. If the proposal is adopted, the only noticeable difference will be that the Football Committee will place teams in two brackets (one of 16 teams, the other of eight), rather than a single 24-team bracket.
• Others have charged that this is a clever idea to create more tournament games and thus generate more revenue for the NCAA through television rights, concession sales and the like. That conclusion is wrong in two ways. First, the approach under consideration actually would result in one less game than is currently being played (23 now vs. 22 under the two-bracket proposal). Second, the expense of every Division II championship — including football — exceeds revenue, so there’s no money to be made. Those who claim otherwise are seriously misinformed. Furthermore, we have no assurance that a second football championship game will be televised, but even if it is, any rights fees will be minimal or non-existent. Indeed, it’s quite possible that Division II will have to pay to get the game televised, a practice that is currently employed with early-round games of the existing championship.

I am also concerned by the lukewarm support exhibited by a few schools that support the concept but that disagree with the 50 percent break for the second bracket. Other breaks were considered, but we believed that making a distinction between fully funded programs and those that are 50 percent funded made the most sense philosophically. Of course, the membership is free to sponsor amendments that would change that figure, but the task force did look at many scenarios and eventually made a decision based on what’s in the best long-term interests of Division II.

What most distresses me these days, however, is the overall acrimony that surrounds this issue. Some say that the smaller programs should move to Division III if they don’t want to commit to fully funding football. Conversely, you also hear people say that our larger programs have more in common with Division I’s Football Championship Subdivision than they do with Division II.

Those attitudes do us no good. In fact, I believe Division II’s greatest strength is that it is the most homogenous of the three NCAA membership divisions. Of course we have the natural differences that come with having 290 member colleges and universities, but we also have enormous commonality, many examples of which have been identified in our new strategic-positioning platform. That is where the strength of our division lies; those common bonds and aspirations represent the base from which we should build and grow.

As for the football issues, I ask that all of those who engage in discussion understand and acknowledge that the proposals have been made in good faith to stabilize a volatile situation. Let’s have a good and productive debate — followed by support for whatever the membership may decide.