A broader discussion about the formula used to distribute enhancement funds turned into a one-year windfall for Division II institutions at the Division II Planning and Finance Committee’s meeting Wednesday.

As the appointed stewards of how the Division II budget aligns with the division’s strategic plan, Planning and Finance Committee members were reviewing whether the formula – a third of which is based on performance in men’s and women’s basketball – is consistent with a strategic plan that emphasizes broad-based athletics success and a well-rounded educational experience.

While that discussion is not necessarily new (committee members informed Convention attendees in January that the review was occurring), the committee did engage for the first time on how to allocate a scheduled $300,000 increase in the fund for 2010. Because a decision on whether the formula should be modified has not been reached, however, committee members decided to devote the increase in 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 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 through two channels. Some of the money was distributed to Division II conferences based on their teams’ performances in the Division II men’s basketball tournament (a model borrowed from Division I); the remainder was divided equally among Division II member institutions.

In 2000-01, the Division II 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.

The Division II Presidents Council raised the issue of the basketball prong last year and charged the Planning and Finance Committee with considering whether an alternative was appropriate.

That discussion continued Wednesday with a committee review of membership feedback from the 2009 Convention regarding several alternatives that have been proposed, including an academic-based component, success in sports beyond just basketball and success in implementing Division II strategic initiatives. The Planning and Finance Committee also added the idea of eliminating the basketball-specific prong over a phased-in, three-year period (and thus devoting 50 percent to both of the other prongs), and members asked NCAA staff to provide data on how that would affect future distributions for the committee’s review at its August meeting.

The committee reached no further conclusion, though, other than to reiterate its dissatisfaction with the basketball prong as a reflection of Division II’s strategic position.

“This committee is on record that the basketball portion of the distribution formula that was determined long before Division II’s recent identity campaign does not align with our new strategic direction,” said Indianapolis President Beverley Pitts, who chairs the Planning and Finance Committee. “While that may be a relatively easy conclusion to reach, the much more difficult rejoinder is what to adopt as an alternative.”

Pitts said her committee will continue to seek feedback on the matter in advance of a renewed discussion in August.

Tracking the strategic plan

In other action during the committee’s April 29 meeting, the group reviewed procedures to track implementation of the division’s new three-year strategic plan. The plan that the committee is charged with overseeing sets forth five strategic objectives (academics/life skills, athletics operations/compliance, game day/championships, membership issues and diversity) and assigns oversight responsibilities to various governance committees and associations.

The committee will have access to data from 29 tracking metrics (from graduation rates and Academic Performance Census data to championship surveys and GOALS/SCORE research) but will rely on various governance committees to collect and distill that information to align with goal-specific reviews the Planning and Finance Committee will request.

Pitts said her committee will narrow its review to one or two strategic objectives at a time, based on what the Presidents Council considers as priorities, rather than try to review the entire plan annually.

“The all-at-once approach would be overwhelming, given the number of metrics and oversight committees involved in implementing the plan,” she said. “We believe a better approach is for the Presidents Council to identify areas on which to focus in a given year and then have our committee provide direction to the appropriate oversight committees to review data and provide recommendations.”

While the Planning and Finance Committee will have the entirety of the data at its disposal, it will ask oversight committees for specific analysis. “And we will provide some direction for that analysis based on the issues we are trying to resolve,” Pitts said.

Pitts said the committee will work on a timeline for reviewing the plan, including guidelines for oversight committee analysis by August.

Other action

The Planning and Finance Committee also reviewed an electronic conference grant application form being piloted to six conferences this year (the East Coast, Pennsylvania State Athletic, California Collegiate Athletic, Northern Sun Intercollegiate and Peach Belt Conferences, and the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association). Not only is the form designed to be easier to administer and to bolster conferences’ strategic planning regarding grant requests (since an archive will be established over time), it also gives the Planning and Finance Committee more flexibility in providing feedback, asking for further clarification and ultimately evaluating the proposals. The pilot also includes a new recording form that conferences use to report how their use of funds aligns with the division’s strategic plan.

The committee will continue to evaluate the pilot this summer and then suggest modifications for next year when the electronic version will be distributed to all 22 conferences. Because of the newness of the form and its emphasis on approving requests in accordance with how they align with strategic initiatives, the committee will develop guiding principles about how the group will begin reviewing the first iteration of requests at its August meeting. 

The committee also approved a new grant reporting form for the five affiliated organizations that receive grants from Division II (the Division II Athletics Directors Association, the Division II Conference Commissioners Association, the Division II Faculty Athletics Representatives Association, the Minority Opportunities Athletics Association and the National Association of Collegiate Women Athletic Administrators). The new forms, which become effective this year, are similar to the conference grant applications in that they require the organizations to describe explicitly how their use of funds correspond with the Division II strategic plan and the organization’s strategic objectives.