NCAA DIVISION II
LEGISLATION: IS WHAT WE HAVE NECESSARY?
(Monday, June 8, 10:45 -11:30 a.m.)
My name is Mike Jacobs. I'm the athletic director at Shepherd College in West Virginia. I'm the person who sent you the survey you received in the mail. I asked for your response to that and we now will talk about it. But before we do that, I'm going to inttoduce the other people on the panel today. Ralph Barkey is from Sonoma State University in California and he'll be making an address to this survey. We also have Cappy Powell, who is a representative from the NCAA, our liaison with Division II. Cappy will be here to answer any questions or direct any comments relative to legislation. I think that is the crux to what this is all about The issue is, do we have too much to Division II. Is it necessary , etc. ?
To begin with, I'll give you a little history .I am on the NACDA Executive Committee, as is Ralph. When we got together this winter, the comment was, should we have a breakout for Division II and address the Division II legislation? I thought this was a very good time to do that I've heard during the last two Conventions quite a bit of rumbling and people being upset about legislation coming down from above and how it's affecting Division II and how, specifically, it's effecting us in tenns of the limited manpower we have to deal with some of these things. I don't think there's anybody in this room that over practices. I don't think there's anybody in this room that feels as though they've got so many dollars they have to worry about controlling them and being cost-contained by them. I don't think there's too many people here doing the types of things that are leading us into some of the problems we see in Division I. We are different. We are separate. We are totally tied, as we know, somewhat to Division I because of the scholarship difference. Of course, we could speak quite a bit about the difference between Division II and Division III scholarships, but that's not our issue.
We are being mandated by the same legislation that's coming down from Division I. Because of that, some of the talk I've heard has been toward federation. Ralph is going to speak on that in tenus of its total consequence. Personally, I'm going to make a comment I think federation is not the issue as much as it is legislation, in tenus of what we have being unnecessary for our level. It's time to do something about that. My concern is that it's
probably going to be retroactive action we have to take because the legislation is aJready in place. That might make us look a little bad in the eyes of the Presidents' Council, etc. But, this is where we are today and this is what
we've inherited. Along those lines, and from that perspective, the survey was developed. It was mainly developed not to encompass all issues, but as I look through the operating manual which is where this came from, I took each of the recruiting and those types of bylaws and started asking questions myself that I've heard other people ask.
I want to go through the instrument itself to tell you what these findings were. There are 193 NACDA
members that are NCAA Division II. The survey went out to all of them. We got 101 responses in the time limit
we asked for. In the process of tallying, I picked up maybe three more that were not included in here. I looked over those three that came in later and I found they haven't significantly changed in tenus of the complex. With 101 responses, it makes it fairly simple to look at in tenus of 100 percent break. If you look at the fIrst situation, should Division II be bound by contact-Iimiting legislation, then you see 68/33, you can translate that to almost 100 percent because we have 101 people who responded. It's almost a 70/30 break to that issue. We do feel that we should be legislated by some type of contact-limiting legislation.
The same thing holds true in teOIlS of the evaluation-limiting legislation. I don't think anyone wants to totally throw that out But the feeling as you start to go down a little later, you'll see some changes here. Should we observe quiet or dead periods? That was an overwhelming 80 percent/20 percent vote.
Should Division II be bound by the National Letter of Intent if no full scholarships are awarded in certain sports? That was the issue I was looking at I don't know if it was taken that way or not. Maybe it was taken a little bit out of context. As you know, we will go ahead with scholarships the best we can in those sports that are high proftle sports. Those that are not, obviously, we cannot even put a scholarship in those hands. My concern is, do these quiet periods necessarily have to be in those situations? Some of us have, basically, a non-scholarship football program. The overwhelming feeling was, yes, we should.
Should Division II use the unofficial rule only to prohibit the official full page visits? In this situation, a lot of people are starting to think we should operate on an unofficial visit basis. As you can see, almost 70 percent of the respondents said that an unofficial basis is what we should be operating with in the non-paid situation. That's something to think about in tenns of cost containment.
Are recruiting calendars necessary? Yes, they are. Seventy percent responded to that The next thing is the highest swing I've seen. If yes to the above, should Division II set its own permanent calendar? Over 90 percent said yes. Tbat's a direction that some people might look at We feel as though the idea of a floating calendar or the idea that a calendar that's attached more to Division I might not be necessary in Division II.
The next two are pretty much broken 50/50. Should Division n keep records relevant to the number of recruiting contacts? Should the limit to Division n evaluations be there? With the 50/50 split, there's a need to look at it a little closer.
Should Division II be bound by legislation and mandates to keeping graduation rates? As much as we're probably not, I think it's necessary with the federal mandates that are coming down. You'll see it's almost a 60/40 split on that
Should recruiting material be limited at all in Division ll? I was expecting a little different swing here because we don't have a lot of dollars and the one place we can spend some dollars is in recruiting materials. For a lot of us, the recruiting we do is not face to face. Maybe that brochure we send out is important in terms of recruiting. But, as you can see, the bulk of the responses are, yes, we probably should.
I'm moving on to the eligibility situation. Some of the slant here is toward academic eligibility towards continuing matriculation. You'll see in the comments that it was highly thought of by people even though it wasn't pointed out that strongly in the instrument Should Division II certify eligibility each semester? There are some people thinking that way. You can see it's no, but it's not a resounding no. Should Division II adopt the sliding scale? I know that wasn't moved at the convention. We all know that A lot of us gave a sigh of relief when it wasn't If you're not aware, my president gets communication from the council presidents and your presidents probably do to. You probably get the same thing I get which is a fIltering down to your office. The council presidents understand it and Division II is a little upset that that didn't move. If we think it's going to go away, I don't think that's the case. If we're concerned about it, we need to think about it in terms of pro activity.
Should a partial qualifier enrolled in 12 credit hours in the baccalaureate progrnm be allowed to practice in Division II? You can see there's some feeling that it is a good idea. Should a hardship medical form be developed and filled out by the attending physician? We're an independent school. If you're independent, it becomes a situation where I have to send to the NCAA, with not a whole lot in the manual, papers relative to the hardship complaint Then the papers are sent back asking for additional materials. It's sent back again, asking for additional materials. So this can be made into a more streamlined situation for us independents. I've also heard from some conferences that there is not a sameness in the way you handle it in a conference. Maybe some guidelines should be set up indicating what you need before it goes down. If you've ever gone through this situation, you know it can be a very long process.
Should competitor student-athletes be required to post a 2.0 after their second season of competition? I picked the second season figuring, let's see what happens there. A resounding 75 percent said yes; some people think after every semester. A lot of people registered concerns about it being a disgrace the way academics, in terms of matriculation, are set up now. That is a concern and is an area that the presidents are looking at a lot stronger.
Should Division II fmancial aid be reduced lower to those levels? As you can see, 60/40 say no. Should Division II consider a Division II-AAA football? That's an ugly question. At the same time, it's an interesting concept. It's not a conclusive no, but it's a situation that we have to look at. We need to be aware there's some sensitivity there.
Should the Fell Grant in Division II be equal to that allowed in Division I. Sixty percent said yes. As you know, there's a big difference between the two. They're all students. They're at our universities and private schools.
In terms of the comments, one of the things that came back four times is set tuition and fee-only scholarships in Division II. Again, it's just a comment that was passed on. Of course, at the same time, you can see above that, put it back to the pre-1992 convention. It's well spread on both sides.
Should Division II eliminate the ticket list policy? What was the purpose of that when it was sent out, was the idea do we need to worry about that? Should we be charging everybody coming through the gate and not worrying about that situation? We all realize that we don't make it on revenues. Maybe we should drop it all together. I had a lot of people answering that and made a comment that they dido't get that intent. If I had worded it a little differently, it may not have come out like it did.
The last area was the playing and practice sessions. This is the one that's cost us a lot of manpower situations and has caused us to do a lot of things differently than we do in our own house. We have to keep track of the hours that each athlete is working with a coach. I don't think that any of us are breaking these rules or going over those lines. At my institution, football is probably the hardest working group and basketball right there with it My
football group in working 14 hours and my basketball group is at 12. I don't think that's inconsistent if you've done that same thing across the line. The situation was, should Division II be mandated to record contact hours by each athlete? With that, I was thinking in terms of requiring this be done on a team-to-team basis. You can see there was a "no" situation here and it appears that that's the way most people feel about it
Should coaches record practice sessions and hours by week by team and certify hours practiced by week only? It's not that concise. It's a 58, almost 60 percent, feeling yes, that's the way it should be done. Most people want
no legislation in terms of the comments here. Presently, we must record by each atWete. Should we probably look at it more as a team and a weekly basis, rather than an individual atWete chart?
Should Division II seek to federate itself, and again, that's probably a bad question. I've had a lot of conversation with a lot of people. Ralph will talk about what total federation means. Our major concern here is probably not to totally federate, but to look at our legislation very strongly and look at the legislation to see if we should somehow trim it down to fit our needs. One interesting comment I saw was, maybe it's time for Division II to have a breakout session at our Convention and look at our legislation from top to bottom.
We'll be very quick about what we're doing here. I'm in my fourth and fmal year on the Executive Committee with NACDA. We did get together in February with Margo, who's back there, Mike and myself, and thought that this would be a very good topic to discuss with you. I'm in my 34th year in higher education. I had two years in a junior college, which were excellent, and 21 years in Division I. Eighteen of those years was as a Division I basketball coach and three years as a Division I administrator. Now, I'm finishing my 11th year as a Division II administrator. That doesn't make me any more knowledgeable. Probably a lot more opinionated, that's all.
At this time, I'd like to introduce Ralph Barkey. He'll give you a couple of comments on federation.
The federation issue is something that you all need to be very careful about in terms of promoting and this type of thing. We all enjoy having per diem expenses paid for our teams to go to national championships. We don't generate that income. You know where that comes from. We also enjoy the Division II basketball enhancement money. We've all got the responsibility to keep a good relationship with Division I. Those that speak of total federation, what that means, as Cappy would explain, you basically would become an independent, national
association, totally separate from Division I. Bob may go ahead with this at 11:30 in the next session. I don't think any of us want that here. You do need to keep a relationship with Division I and federation is not the issue.
The issue is us having appropriate and reasonable legislation for Division II. Most of us, last January at Anaheim, talked about being overwhelmed. Is there anyone here who doesn't feel overwhelmed occasionally with administrative legislation? The NCAA has a hard time understanding that most of us do not have staffs. We don't have a lot of staff. I have a lot less, as did Jan and Chuck recently, because of budget cuts in California. But, you get things that sectionize this survey, etc., so that you can assign your staff to take care of it. Your staff is you and maybe, your secretary. You don't have the staffs to do what Division I can do. The NCAA doesn't understand that. It's predominantly football- and basketball-division oriented in tenns of legislation. Most of that legislation that we talked about playing and practice seasons is football and basketball in Division I. That's what we're living with. That's why it was done. If you'n remember the survey they sent out that they based that legislation on, that was the response of predominantly, if not only, Division I athletes. Did any of you submit that survey to your Division II student-athletes? At the time, we had 480. Some of you may have 600 athletes in your program. I doubt there's an athletic director or administrator in here who submitted that survey to Division II student-athletes. I think that was a survey conducted by Division I athletes only, so we take whatever comes out of that That's not right for us. Our athletes are very different. Our programs are very different
Some issues dlat some administtators have talked to me about and some things dlat I feel important about dlat are coming up, is dIe certification process dlat is being proposed We already do an institutional certification, don't we. You have all of your staff sign dlat dley haven't cheated during dIe year. By dIe end of dIe year, you get dlat signed and sent in. The new certification programs were for institutions, as well as for coaches, but primarily for institutions. If you'll remember in Anaheim, dley said dIe proposers of that legislation said dley knew it would take a huge amount of time for your staff to do dlis, but it's really important You remember dIe legislation and dIe piece
of work dlat's coming up about certification? That will overwhelm all of us. If we let dlat go for Division II, you're going to be up to your ears in wondering how you can possibly comply widl dlat.
The certification of coaches is somed1ing a lot of coaches in Division n like. I don't, myself. We have a real solid program of making coaches very aware of d1eir responsibilities. We give d1em all a manual. We go through a couple of critical sections, d1eir sport and d1e recruiting and extra benefits section. For us now, to get involved in tests d1at are going to be given to us by d1e national office, and we're going to have to administer tests to our coaches. A lot of you have part-time coaches and those are d1e people d1at can be your biggest problem, as we know. I don't have a part-time coach. I have just about all part-time coaches. I have two full-time coaches. None of d1em work outside. I'm very lucky d1at way. They're income is exclusively from d1e university. So d1ey're d1ere all of d1e time. If you get into the certification process for institutions and coaches, you're going to be up to your ears with more paper work than any of us want to have.
This proposed clearing house for eligibility is another thing. If we have to start doing that, where all of the paper work has to go into a clearing house, this will overwhelm us. Those issues, certification and a national clearing house we should give some thought to. When we meet next January and that gets on the agenda again, I just hope you'll get up there and say, "No, we've had it We're up to our ears with administrative legislation."
Part of the problem with the legislation that we have to live under is that, historically, the Steering Committee has accepted what Division I people and the Counsel have promoted. We need to be like Division I. This makes us feel important. We can't disassociate ourselves by not accepting legislation that Division I people have accepted. That's generally been the case. We don't want to take ourselves too far away from Division I, but we do want to get some reasonable legislation.
How many of you, right now, are conducting that independent audit that's required? How many of you know the amendment that I moved and got passed about six years ago? How many of you in here are having an outside agency conduct an annual independent audit as required by the NCAA? None of you are doing that? That's an independent agency that you have to pay. The amendment was that all programs with an operating budget of $300,000 or less, would be excluded from that audit. Any of you remember when that conversation took place on the convention floor? That got passed. It's now because of the economy. I hope to move another one and move it up to $500,000, which would exclude a lot of schools. That's a costly thing for Division II. It's strictly because Division I people have found a way to redirect some football revenue, some basketball revenue into some other channels, and be used for reasons that are never required to be documented. That's the reason that that came up. Because there was money moving out of the athletic department to sources that were considered discretionary funds and never had to be documented. Some other people who thought they were losing the edge, etc., promoted that amendment and we had to live with it This is the kind of thing we're trying to get out of. We can't live with the things Division I football and basketball are creating.
Do you remember a major issue last January over 14811 and that's the outside competition legislation? There were a lot of bitter people on that floor, if you'll recall. A lot of you may have voted in favor of disallowing that.
It was a very close vote. It got dropped back the next day at the Division II business session. This is the issue, and it's primarily with volleyball and soccer players, that if you do not sponsor a non-traditional season, the opPOrtunities for your volleyball and soccer athletes to have any competition ends somewhere in the mid- to the third week in November. They are done for the year. Some administrators are frustrated at having to sponsor a non-traditional season and expend funds to cover the competition expenses but, that's the only way you can get your soccer and volleyball, and as the case may be, softball, athletes an opportunity to go through the 22- to 24-week playing season. If you don't sponsor that non-traditional season, they're done in the middle or third week in November. I personally feel that's terrible. We have had a problem in our conference with that. I feel that when your traditional season is done, at our level, in those sports, we ought to allow those students to go out and have some fun and play grass volleyball tournaments, play some Sunday soccer league games. We promote the idea that student-athletes should be just like the general student. They should mix with the general student. But, we have to tell the volleyball and soccer athletes we can't afford to sponsor a non-traditional season, so you can't compete in anything when your traditional season ends. I think that's terribly wrong and so did a lot of other people. But then, there were a lot of you who felt that was correct We shouldn't let them go out and play Sunday league soccer in the spring.
Just out of curiosity, do you remember the amendment asked that outside competition be allowed for those athletes after their traditional season has been completed? If that's correct, how many of you think that's a good idea? That's coming up in January again.
Anything can be continued with Bob in the next session, who will lead you into the future. I've gone past my time. Thank you.