ALL DIVISION II MEMBERS
TRENDS FOR THE FUTURE: WHERE ARE WE HEADED?
(Monday, June 7 -11:45 a.m.-12:45 p.m.)
I'm Margo Harbison from East Texas State University and a member of the NACDA Executive Committee. I came on about three years ago and I felt that I wanted to do what I could with the other members from Division II schools to help get the message out that we have a particular message in Division 11, that we need to be able to meet together and hear together what each other is doing. We need a program in which we have time to sit down and share ideas and what is going on. It's time for us to stand up and be counted because I'm very proud of being a Division II school and I hope each of you here today feel the very same way. We have a unique program to offer to our student-athletes. As a member of the NACDA Committee, the people who are representing you feel the same way. We've had a lot of dialogue during the last several years about how best to do that.
This is our first meeting where we're able to single ourselves out as Division II institutions. If you look in your programs there are several other times today that we have the opportunity to meet together. I won't giv~ credit to the person who put my feelings into words at the NCAA Convention in Dallas, but he stood at the microphone and said, "It's high time that we athletic directors in Division II got together and formed an athletic directors' association." So, this afternoon at 3:00 p.m., we'll be meeting in the South Tower in the Cardiff Room. Be at that meeting. It's time for us to get together. We'll also have round tables tomorrow and Wednesday that will be worthwhile to attend. We're not Division I. We're not NAIA. We're not junior college, we're Division II and we're proud of it.
It's about my concern about us in Division II and speaking up and doing those things that are best for us, that when we started thinking about a program for today, I felt, as we talked with members on the Executive Committee, that we need to hear from some of those people who represent us on various governing bodies and on various committees. Our first speaker today happens to represent us on the Liaison Committee to the Presidents' Commission. I'm going to have Jack Doyle, athletic director at the University of South Dakota, to speak to us in just a few moments. Our second speaker, following Jack, will be that person who represents us, NCAA Division II Vice President Chuck Lindemenn, the athletic director at Humboldt State University. These two represent us, as well as the person who speaks up for us in the office, and that is Kathy Powell. So, don't be hesitant to ask questions as these speakers talk to us. May I present Jack Doyle.
Thank you, Margo. Before I get into talking to you about the Presidents' Commission, I would like to say a couple of words about the meeting which is scheduled this afternoon. At that meeting, Betty Norrie, from the NCAA Foundation, has requested 15 minutes of our time to explain the Life Skills Development Program which the NCAA now has out. Most of you have probably read about this program in the March 17 issue of the NCAA News. She would like to speak to us about that. As far as that meeting is concerned, in the program booklet, my name is mentioned as the main speaker at that affair this afternoon. The reason that we would like to have a good turn out for this afternoon is the fact that we would, in Division II, like to sit down and talk about the problems that we have. We have problems that they don't have in Division I. Division I has problems they don't have in Division II. Many times when we get to the Convention, in the Division II segment, many times different parts of the country go toe-to-toe as far as legislation is concerned. We all
have crises at our universities that are excluded from financial difficulties. We, in Division II, have to come up with some type of program. We have to come up with the program and not let other people come up with our program. We have to do a good job of trying to explain the reasons why we want particular programs in. The only way to do this is to get in the meeting, have people get up and expound on different issues and, whether or not you agree with them, is up to you. We should have the opportunity to speak out about the problems in Division II.
My topic this morning, I am representing Division II on the Liaison Committee, and I wish that I COt tell you what we have done so far. We had one meeting in February in Dallas, Texas. To be honest witl you, we did not know what our charge was going to be. We were told by the NCAA to come up with a charge, so we met one full day talking about what we thought we could do as far as that committee is
concerned. In 1984, the Presidents' Commission was formed. There was a lot of criticism directed tow~ that Commission by athletic directors, faculty reps and by student-athletes as far as not having the opport to talk to those committee people and try to explain to them maybe why some of the legislation which h~ come forth has really hurt Division II instead of helping them. I think our charge now is to give people, individuals but, groups of people, an opportunity to come forward and to meet with our group and in retl we will meet with the Presidents' Council and try to persuade them to change the legislation.
One of the groups that is going to meet with us at the end of the month is the National Association ( Basketball Coaches. You know during the Final Four, one of their coaches was very vocal and came ou said some derogatory comments as far as the Presidents' Commission is concerned. Now, the National Basketball Coaches Association has gotten together and decided that instead of making negative commen a better job of getting organized and try to present why we think that maybe the starting date in basketb; should go back to October 15 instead of November I. That group will be coming forward to meet with the end of the month and talk about some of the basketball related legislation.
At this time, I can't tell you who else will be meeting with us because I have not received the agenda. This morning, I heard there are two or three other groups who also want to come. So, I would like to tell about some of the topics we discussed at the first meeting and what our charge is going to be. If you feel you would like to represent a group that would like to come before that committee, you will have that opportunity to contact the chairman of that group, Dr. Richard Peck, from the University of New Mexico. There are 10 members on the Committee.
The first meeting was organizational in nature, designed to enable a committee to determine the procedures that it would employ in meeting its charges. President Peck reviewed the formal charge, whic to assist the Presidents' Commission and its contacts with various groups in college athletics by serving a hearing panel for such groups when they wish to discuss the views with the Commission, thus, providing better opportunity for such groups that has been available in the Commissions' meetings scheduled since t were formed in 1984. The following observations were offered by the committee members. The essentia goals of the committee must be to assure access to those groups in intercollegiate athletics that want to
communicate with the Presidents' Commission. That would be the number one project as far as this committee is concerned to have people in the divisions feel that they do have an opportunity to communi( with the Presidents' Commission. The committee should grant hearings in response to written requests frc defined groups in college athletics rather than from individuals. Each appearance must have defined issu~ and a specific focus for discussion. The Commission must continue to encompass institutional chief execl officials to confer with the appropriate individuals, faculty reps and athletic administrators in their own
compassion regarding the issues in college athletics, those prorogated or supported by the Commission. 1 failure to do so was cited as one of the reasons that some in the athletic community are critical of the
involvement of the Commission. The Liaison Committee should limit its consideration to the topics and i
before the Presidents' Commission.
Other matters, such as legislative incentives, should remain in the association' s existing channel. F or example, the committees' structure and the NCAA Council. The Liaison Committee should include, as pI its role, the task of attempting to educative constituent groups regarding the work of the Presidents' Commission. For example, any detail legislation sponsored by the Commission is developed and recommended by the NCAA Committee, not by the President's purse. Each approval group will be requi to submit, in advance of its appearance, a written document identifying the topics, intents to discuss and presenting a summary of the position it tends to take. The Committee's responsibility is to report to the Presidents' Commission. It will not engage in reports to the news media and the staff liaison will be exp' to handle all of the media inquiries. As stated, the meeting dates will be at the end of the month.
Now, that's the charge that we have come up with after our first meeting. I'm looking forward to the meeting coming up at the end of the month because you, as well as I, have heard many negative comments concerning the Presidents' Council. The couple of members of the Presidents' Council we've had the opportunity to meet with naturally feel that they have done a good job. They are listening to this organization that they want more of say as far as the legislative practice is concerned. So, this will be an opportunity for you, if you represent any group or if you're on any committees, or if you have any concern. Contact President Peck and ask for an appearance. You may not get one at this particular meeting at the end of the month. This committee is not going to be dissolved after one meeting. I don't know how many years they plan on this committee being in existence, but it's something that I'm looking forward to. If anytime you have questions concerning any particular problems you see, please contact us or one of the members. We certainly are in a position where we might be able to help you and tell you what the procedure should be.
As far as giving you any more information about the committee, I'm sure that there will be some type of article in the NCAA News after we have our meeting. With that, I would like to open the floor to any questions. The Presidents now feel that maybe it is time to delegate some of the convention back to the athletic directors. Many athletic directors feel that in the last three or four years that there really wasn't any reason for us to be there because now, when we go to the convention, the president tells us what issues we have to vote on all the way down the line and maybe the consensus is that this committee will not be helpful. The feedback we're getting from the Commission is that they do want to listen to us and if there is reason to change legislation, they might listen to us. Thank you.
Thank you, Jack. To go along with what has just been said, I think that last year at our convention in Dallas, we found about 40 new members coming in. So, it is really time now for Division II, to stand up and be counted. Having representation from Division II we will have, again, a better voice. It's not like being one against eight, is it? The odds are pretty bad. Just like on the basketball courts, it's not really good when you feel like you're playing against uneven numbers. Our next speaker, Chuck Lindemenn, will expand on topics that he can tell us about, be it certification, be it championship or anything else.
It appears that Division II presidents are beginning to want to separate themselves, somewhat, from Division I. That seems to be coming up in a more clear fashion every time they meet. I'm beginning to believe that there really is a sense now that Division II will stand alone and Division II really ought to pick its own way and not have to be carried along on the coat tails of Division I. I feel good about that.
I would like to go through some of the major topics that those of us on the Steering Committee and on the Championships Committee are having to address and give you an idea of what's going on and try to get some feedback from you on specific issues before us. With regard to championships, as you know, there's been talk for a long time now, in fact, it's been implemented to move in the direction of regionalization. One of the things that changed in that process was the actual numbers of championship opportunities that were going to be available. I know a number of people were concerned. We got a lot of correspondence about the possibility that we would lose championship opportunities because, based on the old formula which was percentage number of institutions in Division II to sponsor us for, and on the influx of NAJA members, it appeared that we might lose championships like wrestling. I hope you all understand that has changed and we're not going on the basis of percentages anymore so, we will not lose any championships. In fact, we're going to see a considerable expansion of championship opportunities in women's sports. Notably, women's volleyball is moving from 20 to 28, softball from 16 to 24, women's cross country from 92 to 132, women's track from 170 to 220, women' s tennis from 70 to 90 and in men' s and women' s basketball, using a concept called the play-in, we will have 48 teams for men and women involved in our championships next season. What is a play-in? Frankly, it's a good expression in Division I so, we just used it in Division II. The bottom line is we will have 48 teams in our men's and women's basketball playoffs next year.
How is that going to be paid for? The Steering Committee in Division II Championships asked that it be paid for in the same fashion that Division I was paying for play-ins in baseball, etc. When we got down to how much that cost, Division I decided that perhaps all of us should back away from it until we had a chance to look at the entire budget. But, if you've read the Gender Equity Report, you will note that the Gender Equity Committee is coming out and saying that all championship opportunities, including play-ins, ought to be funded by the association. I think there's going to be a strong effort to try and do that.
We did lose a couple of things in this championships process. We had to reduce the men's basketball traveling party from 22 to 20. For those of you who sponsor indoor and outdoor track and field, you know that you now have to designate one or the other as your funded championship. The upside of that is that you get full funding. In other words, $60 per diem, rather than the $30 previously. So, that's what's been going on in the championships area.
There are a lot of other things going on. A concern of the membership over the last couple of years is the division membership criteria and the division membership process. We have been taking a look at establishing a process through which an NAIA school would establish full compliance prior to moving into Division II. There would be a one year orientation/education. That year, we would ask that the institution that wants to move to Division II undertake a self-study, that it put its coaches through a coach's certification exam similar to the ones that each of our schools will be undertaking in the next month or so, and the institution would begin to pay dues. In the second and third year, the school would be a provisional member. Under provisional membership, it would have to comply with all NCAA rules, it would be counted as an NCAA component, it would be able to be a member of a conference and it would be listed in the directory . What it would not do is vote, participate in championships, or allow its institutional staff members to serve 01 NCAA committees. It would not be included in the National Stats Program and it would not be able to procure NCAA insurance. For the two consecutive years after that, during which that institution was a full and active member, it would still be denied championships. So, there would be a four-year period before an institution would be fully able to participate in championships. That's the direction that we're going to propose and that will come before the association in that form, or a similar form, for a vote at the next convention.
There has been talk, especially among the Presidents' Commission members, whether or not an institution that is moving from Division II into Division I ought to be allowed to continue to participate in Division II championships. That is something we would like some feedback on. The Steering Committee was inclined t< say that we had to look at that from the standpoint of what impact it had on the youngsters involved in those programs. The presidents have taken a little more of a hardcore approach. They really believe that Division II institutions that are moving into Division I are out of Division II championships, or should be. We will, again, want some feedback on this.
Presidents are also very interested in some form of certification program for Division II. That's been a topic I know a number of you have been concerned about for a long time. The Steering Committee has taker the position that if they want to move in that direction, we ought to use the self-study document as a document that would be used for certification. If there's to be any kind of external review, that review ough1 to be through the accrediting associations. It would be handled as a part of regular university creditation, would not be a stand-alone program, would not have all of the associate costs the stand-alone program might have. That's something that continues to rear its head and it's something I believe that the Presidents' Commission is going to want to deal with. We have suggested, as a Steering Committee on your behalf, tha we form a joint committee to discuss how that might be implemented. I think athletic directors, in particular, are very concerned about time commitment and cost associated with doing something similar to what Divisiol I is trying to do. That's where we stand on this.
With regard to things like rules simplification and break from Division I, the Steering Committee is interested in your feedback in terms of whether there's more to be done in those areas. You know that we tI to maintain the same initial and continuing eligibility rules within Division II, yet in environment, in which Division I continues to change theirs. We have felt that until we have an opportunity to see how Division II
rules effected entrance requirements and the kind of student that we entered and how our continuing eligibility rules affect the graduation rates, that we really shouldn't continue to change the rules. That's where we are on this.
With respect to recruiting, the only thing that we're suggesting at this point, in terms of simplification, is the possibility that we expand tryout opportunities in Division II. Youngsters who visit our campus are allowed to participate with currently enrolled students and coaches to be allowed the opportunity to see how they play. Rather than put our kids in a position where we wine and dine them and prove to them that we have the best party school in the country, we think they would rather get out onto the floor with the kids they might play with next year and see how they'll size up. That's something we want feedback on.
With regard to playing and practice seasons, we're in a good position, if you think it's appropriate, to begin to find some ways to break with Division I in terms of how we handle playing and practice seasons.
We can approach our presidents with a difference in approach, based on what you know and what the coaches know about what's actually going on out there. That's something we should address.
Other issues I think are critical are gender equity and financial conditions. As you look at what goes on
in the next couple of days and you hear the reports from those committees, begin to think about what Division lI's approach ought to be. For example, in gender equity, there's discussion about emerging sports. What should our position be relative to emerging sports? Decreased aid that's not need-based? Skill spaced coaching out of season, new scholarship limits and sponsorships differentials, possibly three men's sports and five women's sports, if you're a football institution, are all considerations in what would ultimately be a gender equity plan for a particular division. We ought to be thinking about what makes sense for Division II instead of being dragged along with Division I in terms of whatever approach it might undertake.
The same is the case with financial conditions. You may have noticed in their material, they're talking about innovative things like putting limitations on bands and spirit squads. For most of us, that isn't a problem at the moment. Perhaps it is and that's an approach we should take. There was discussion on recruiting limits. There was discussion that there would be absolutely no print materials on recruiting. Others have said there should be greater limitations placed on the number of days that are allowed for recruiting.
But, if you watch what's going on in Division I and see what's happened as a result of some of the changes they've made, they've actually created an environment now where there's a whole new business out there.
It's a meat market business based on identifying for Division I coaches who the talent is around the country. You may have noticed that these scouting services have gotten to the point where they've begun to assess the quality of Division I recruiting classes based largely on who's enrolled in them. I don't know if that's the direction we want to take, but it's something we need to consider.
There's been talk about eliminating recruiting rules entirely for everything except football and basketball. Some people think that might make sense in Division II. I wouldn't know. Limits on numbers of coaches, limits on numbers of travel squads, squad sized, elimination of non-traditional seasons and reduction of scholarships and/or move to D-based position tuition scholarships only. All of those things are being battered around and my only caution and what I'd really like to get some feedback on is, which directions make the most sense for Division II and what packages of moves might guide us into the future in a fashion that would be appropriate to this Division. Those are the things that are out there. Rather than take more time discussing them in any detail, I'd like to hear what you have to say. I hope this discussion will take us into this afternoon and help us to continue and guide the direction for the future.
We would like to thank our two speakers today for taking time to be with us. I would like to say that these two guys and myself and some others in the audience are members of the NACDA Executive Committee and to welcome you here to San Diego for this meeting. Next year at this time, we will be back in Marco Island; the year after that, we'll be in New Orleans; and the year after that we'll go back to Marco Island.
The idea is that we do try to move from one part of the country to the other so that we can get people from
all areas of the country attending our meetings. I didn't know very much about NACDA when I became
athletic director five years ago, but since, I've been very active with this group during those past years. This j i
is a young organization, 25 years, even though you can see that there has been some kind of group for 100 I
years and we think that's very special. In 1993, we're celebrating that continual year. NACDA, itself, is 25
years old. It was a group of athletic directors who were sitting around and decided they needed to have some , type of association where they could be talking with each other. Athletic directors, no matter what our : division is, we can learn from one another and it certainly has been very informative for me to be able to sit , around and to pick up from all divisions and the junior college people and the past presidents of this i organization and I've taken back many ideas on my own campus. When I said it's time for us to stand up and
be counted, I don't mean that it's time for us to make a divisional split, but it's time for us, yes, to get together and. talk and to, no~ listen to, what big broth~r o~ l~~le sister or someone else is telling us: We do jhave our unIque needs. BeImg able to meet together ID Division II, I can now look across the audience and
see people that, when I see in the hallway, I feel much more comfortable talking to them about my problems because we all share the same problems.
If there are no other questions, we'll dismiss. Thank you.