By Staff
Athletic Management, 18.6, October/November 2006, http://www.momentummedia.com/articles/am/am1806/wudividing.htm
Come December 2009, more than one football team could be hoisting an NCAA Division II national championship trophy. A proposal to create two championships in the division has been introduced by a special Football Task Force and will be voted on at the 2007 NCAA Convention in January.
If passed, the proposal will allow schools offering fewer football scholarships the chance to compete for a national title without having to face traditional powerhouses that offer the maximum 36. The proposal would create the Freedom Division for teams awarding 18 to 36 full-time equivalencies and the Liberty Division for teams offering fewer than 18. The number of teams advancing to the playoffs would remain at 24, but include 16 for the Freedom Division and eight for the Liberty Division.
The proposal comes in the wake of a 2005 attempt to reduce the maximum number of scholarships allowed from 36 to 24. Though the vote failed by a 2-to-1 margin, it spurred discussion about what could be done to bring parity to Division II football, and it eventually led to the creation of the Division II Football Task Force.
NCAA Division II Vice President Mike Racy says the proposal is a good alternative to the always-contentious idea of reducing scholarships. “Schools that want to continue to offer 36 scholarships could do so, but for schools that can’t be competitive in the sport with the scholarships they offer, a second championship opportunity would be available,” he says.
The idea is not to fracture Division II, as in Division I-A and I-AA, says Charles Ambrose, President of Pfeiffer University and chair of the Division II Presidents Council. Rather, he equates it to how Division I-A has different bowl games. “With the range of equivalencies and scholarship limits in place across Division II,” Ambrose says, “the structure as proposed by the task force would provide an equitable fit.”
There is also concern among administrators that if the issue of balance is left unresolved, the matter of creating an equal playing field could loom over Division II football, and scholarship-reduction proposals will keep popping up until some kind of change is made. “If this proposal doesn’t go through, people are saying they’ll propose another reduction in scholarships,” Ambrose says. “Then, football becomes this persistent cloud that hangs over the identity of the entire division. That is not healthy.”
In response, the Presidents Council is considering requiring a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority to approve any change to scholarship limits in the future. Racy says if that change is approved, the issue of addressing parity in Division II football could be put to rest even if the split-championship vote fails. “It would certainly reduce the likelihood that we’ll see future scholarship-reduction proposals unless there’s a groundswell of support,” he says.
As for the dual-championship proposal, some schools would like to see the lower division capped at 24 scholarships instead of 18, and there could be an amendment to the proposal before the January vote. Racy says several teams in the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference—which allows a maximum of 24 scholarships—are concerned they would have to reduce scholarships to be allowed to play at the lower level.
The proposal could have other ramifications as well. The split could attract more schools from Division III and the NAIA to compete in Division II’s lower level. It could also lead to a shake-up of conferences within Division II as schools seek to align themselves with others playing for the same championship. The legislation would require conferences to decide by Sept. 1, 2008 whether to play in the Freedom or Liberty Division, which could force some schools to change the number of scholarships given or become independents.
As far as other sports latching onto the two-championship model, Racy says it’s not likely since the wide range between scholarships offered by football teams makes the sport a special case. “Schools are making decisions about whether to maintain Division II membership or move to I-AA or Division III for two sports—football and basketball,” he says. “When you look at the distribution of scholarships in basketball, the majority of Division II schools are sponsoring at or near the scholarship limit. You don’t see the type of distribution in basketball scholarships that you do in football.”
But would the Division II national championship hold the same meaning if both a national powerhouse and a small, upstart program can claim it? Bob Boerigter, Athletic Director at Northwest Missouri State University and a member of the task force, admits that creating two divisions could lessen the achievement, but doesn’t buy into the theory. “If you look at a high school model where some states award five state championships for basketball, the smallest school that wins is just as proud as the largest school,” he says. “In the end, a national championship is a national championship to those who have won it.”