NCAA Division II 40th Anniversary Yearbook

112 Pages·2014·8.87 MB·English

23
Contents
Worthy tribute
Profiles of the 49-member
Division II 40th Anniversary
Tribute Team
67 6
A history of the Introduction
NCAA’s divisional structure 2 DII Facts and Figures
3 LLLeeetttttteeerrr fffrrrooommm TTTeeerrrrrriii SSSttteeeeeebbb GGGrrrooonnnaaauuu
How the Special Convention in 1973 produced
the Roman numerals we’re so familiar with today HHooww WWee GGoott HHeerree
Hail to the
10 Reflections Kristin
champions from the past Erb
Recaps of all 25 Division II 11 FFoouunnddiinngg DDiivviissiioonn IIII
championships in 2013 members
12 TTThhheee DDDIIIIII iiidddeeennntttiiitttyyy iiinnniiitttiiiaaatttiiivvveee
13 IInniittiiaall ccoommmmiitttteeee
rosters, chairs
14 A look ahead
16 CCuurrrreenntt ggoovveerrnnaannccee
committees
Year in review
59 NNNeeewwwsss hhhiiiggghhhllliiiggghhhtttsss fffrrrooommm 222000111333
82 EElliittee 8899 wwiinnnneerrss
Conferences
85 CCCooonnnfffeeerrreeennnccceee rrrooollllll cccaaallllll,,, 222000111333---111444
RReeccoorrddss aanndd ssttaattss
95 NNoottaabbllee rreeccoorrddss
100 AAllll--ttiimmee cchhaammppiioonnss
108 Puzzle page
2013 Division II Yearbook 1
DII
Life in the Balance
Higher education has lasting importance on an individual’s future success. For this reason,
FACTS AND
the emphasis on the student-athlete experience in Division II is a comprehensive program
FIGURES of learning and development in a personal setting. The Division II approach provides growth
opportunities through academic achievement, learning in high-level athletics competition
and development of positive societal attitudes in service to community. The balance and
integration of these different areas of learning opportunity provide Division II student-athletes
a path to graduation, while cultivating a variety of skills and knowledge for life ahead.
292 Enrollment at DII active members:
Active members 120 (41.1 percent) 133 (45.5 percent)
2,500-7,499 Less than 2,499
9
Schools in provisional year
8
Schools in candidacy year two
5 33 (11.3 percent) 6 (2.1 percent)
15,000 and above
7,500-14,900

Schools in candidacy year one
4,209
50/50
Average enrollment
Percentage of public vs. private
Average number of student-athletes:
(active members only)
421
Undergraduate enrollment: (265 men; 156 women)
Schools with football
546,255
264
Men – (44 percent)
(136 men; 128 women)
708,108
Schools without football
Women – (56 percent)
Sports sponsorship average:
6.9 7.9
Number of student-athletes:
64,109 Men’s Women’s
Number of DII championships:
Men – (59 percent)
12 13
44,961

Men Women
Women – (41 percent) (7,932 participants) (7,981 participants)
Reflect on the past,
but relish the future
Division II Anniversaries are special. They are benchmarks in time when we reflect on the past but also
40th Anniversary Yearbook look forward to what can happen by the time the next one rolls around. Division II just finished its
40th anniversary year, and while the previous 39 have been pretty good, everyone involved with
EDItoRIAl StAff the division made the effort to ensure that No. 40 can be remembered as extraordinary.
Gary Brown, Josh Looney And why not? There certainly is plenty to celebrate. From a time in the early 1970s when the
Editors entire NCAA was “coming of age,” Division II came onto the scene as its own entity but at the
time not clearly defined. Since then, Division II has established a unique philosophy and carved
Contributing writers: out a healthy identity and important position within intercollegiate athletics.
Charlie Ambrose The division has hundreds, if not thousands, of people to thank for that. People like Don
Anna Braunsdorf Lubbers, Jean Cerra, Barb Schroeder, Jerry McGee, Clint Bryant and dozens of others stepped into
Lauren Ely leadership positions at key times during the division’s early years. Sue Willey, Debbie Chin, Charles
Brittany Johnson Ambrose, Jill Willson, Paul Engelmann, Steven Jordan, Tim Selgo and Ann Martin are among
Sam King the many contributors to take the Division II leadership baton after the NCAA federated decision-
Joey Lamar making to the three divisions in 1997. That list is not exhaustive by any means. The Division II
David Pickle family has far-reaching roots. And now, people like Pat O’Brien, Bob Boerigter, Karen Stromme
Manny Randhawa and Tom Haas are on board to start Year No. 41 where we left off – as an innovative, values-based,
Erica Rath leadership-minded collection of educators.
Matt Valezquez Along the way, student-athletes at Division II institutions have flourished, both in athletics
competition and as citizen-leaders beyond their playing days. We honored many of them this year,
Design and Editing too – 49 to be exact – and their stories are chronicled later in this yearbook. After all, student-
Arnel Reynon athlete success in the classroom, in competition and in life after college is what Division II is
Art Director about. The “Life in the Balance” mantra we espouse suits the division well.
We have worked hard to achieve that balance. The last eight years in particular have been
Amanda Goehlert a critical time, as the division has established its brand and learned how to live by it. Student-
Designer athletes, coaches and staff who choose Division II know what they’re getting now – Division II is
more of a destination because of the work we’ve done to define who we are and what we stand for
Scott Deitch in the athletics/education continuum. It is fitting that this 40th anniversary arrived when it did.
Statistician This year was special for me personally, as well. After having been involved in staff leadership with
Division II for the last decade, I was fortunate enough to be named to succeed Mike Racy as Division
Phyllis Mahoney II vice president in July. While Mike’s shoes certainly have been daunting ones to fill, it has been a
Martha Allan tremendous honor for me to serve in this capacity during such a momentous year for the division. I
Copy editors am excited that we could name Mike as an honorary member of the 40th Anniversary Tribute Team,
because without his leadership, we would not be where we are today. (See the related story on page 57.)
Sport Graphics But as I said to start this piece, anniversaries are a time to both reflect and re-energize.
Division II’s history is rich, but its future is just as promising, thanks to the many leaders and
3423 Park Davis Circle
Indianapolis, Indiana 46235 student-athletes who care so much about its success. I hope you enjoy the pages that follow, as we
317/899-7000 celebrate Division II’s past, present and future. But as you do so, focus most on that future part
www.sportg.com because it is a bright one indeed, and I look forward to being a part of it with all of you.
Printing
Kingery Printing Company
Effingham, Illinois 62401
www.kingeryprinting.com
2014 copyright
The Division II Yearbook is
produced annually and distributed
at the NCAA Convention as Terri Steeb Gronau
a benefit of membership. All Division II Vice President
content is copyright of the NCAA.
Any content that is reproduced in
print or online without written or
expressed permission is strictly
prohibited.
2013 Division II Yearbook 3

HOW WE GOT HERE
2013 Division II Yearbook 5
How one and two
equaled three
By David Pickle
A ride down memory lane when the NCAA divided for a good cause
6 Division II Yearbook 2013
t
he birth of the NCAA’s current divisional structure wasn’t as easy as I, II, III.
For almost everybody currently affiliated with college sports, the NCAA
has always comprised three divisions. The precursor terms of “University
Division” and “College Division” are familiar enough, but the forces that led from
equaled three
a loose two-division structure to a more defined, divisionally autonomous approach
40 years ago are much less understood.
Although the creation of the divisions may be cause for celebration now, the birth
of the modern structure occurred in a crisis that jeopardized the existence of the
NCAA. To grasp what eventually was approved at the NCAA Special Convention of
August 1973, one first must glimpse the NCAA of the 1950s when the big program
vs. small program dilemma began to emerge.
2013 Division II Yearbook 7
At that time, one set of rules governed all member schools. tion that was outside its interests. The approach, as one might
There were no sports-sponsorship requirements. To become an imagine, was not entirely successful. By 1972, most members
NCAA member, an institution was required only to be a col- acknowledged the need for a new direction. When NCAA
lege or university with “acceptable academic standards” that Secretary-Treasurer Samuel E. Barnes of District of Columbia
agreed to “establish and maintain high standards of personal Teachers College called a roundtable on reorganization to order
honor, eligibility and fair play.” There were only 13 national at the 1972 Convention, change was on the horizon.
championships, all for men. “All of us realize that those who do not progress must lose
In the early days, the Ivy League and then large public in- sight of the future,” Barnes said. “The NCAA Council has
stitutions dominated NCAA championships; by the late 1940s, recognized the fact that this Association cannot stand still.”
private urban institutions were flexing their muscles. Small He then introduced David Swank, a young law professor and
schools had no realistic opportunity to compete nationally, and faculty athletics representative from Oklahoma who had been
the desire to fix that shortcoming led the NCAA Executive designated chair of a committee to explore reorganization.
Committee (at the time, a group of athletics administrators who Swank’s assignment had come only a couple of months
oversaw championships) in 1956 to approve establishment of a earlier, and he didn’t have many details to share with Conven-
College Division Basketball Championship. tion delegates. Even the terminology was preliminary. “You
It was a seminal event for the NCAA, and at the 1957 Conven- could place yourself in Division A, Division B or Division C
tion, Willis Stetson of Swarthmore proudly reported on the prog- or whatever they might be called,” he said as he described the
ress of the first such championship, which would take place that concept of self-determination.
March 1957 in Evansville, Ind. In so doing, he addressed not only (A year and a half later, when the 1973 Special Convention
the issue of the day but also the question of the next 16 years: “I was set to vote on the matter, Muskingum AD Ed Sherman
know one question that has been raised and has been asked me – Swank’s successor – described the underwhelming truth
in my area in the East,” he told Convention delegates. “How are behind the now-familiar Roman numerals: “The committee
teams classified University Division or College Division?” started out by suggesting maybe we could call them by colors
It was an excellent question, but the answer presented or names to try to avoid the I, II, III implication,” Sherman
problems. In short, to be College Division, the school could said. “But as we progressed, the discussion always got back
not be included in the “major statistical list” of the National to determining them I, II and III. People who wrote in with
Collegiate Athletic Bureau. That meant that although NCAA suggestions and comments also termed them to be I, II and III.
competition was to be divided on a strength-of-schedule stan- I guess rather than fight, we gave in to it, and that is the name
dard, legislation and policy were not. given – Division I, Division II and Division III.”)
The 1950s discussions about College and University Divi- Swank referred to the legislative challenges involving fi-
sion competition also were occurring alongside a major Baby nancial aid (“we have probably put the cart of financial aid be-
Boomer initiative for youth fitness. The prevailing senti- fore the horse of reorganization”) and the need for like-minded
ment was to expand intercollegiate athletics opportunities to schools to legislate together (“it is difficult to apply the same
support national fitness, and that meant the addition of more rules to UCLA as you might apply to Union College”).
small colleges to generate more varsity competition. At the 1972 Convention, Swank pointed toward two
As for the larger programs, they were experiencing a boom desired takeaways: a three-division structure and maintenance
of postwar popularity and beginning to grasp the revenue poten- of a common constitution for all members. Delegates to the
tial of the new medium of television. Their priorities reflected 1972 Convention would not be asked to consider any legisla-
those realities, and as they sought to expand their scope, they tion on the matter. Instead, the request from the Council was
began to resent growing resistance from the smaller schools. a seemingly simple one: approval of a resolution to conduct a
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, bruising differences of Special Convention on reorganization by July.
opinion emerged on questions of freshman eligibility, financial All of the debate was civil, with no hint of acrimony, but
aid and academics. Larger programs became increasingly con- the green light for the Special Convention failed, 135-219,
cerned about governance. In response, the membership devel- with most of the nay votes coming from College Division
oped a curious approach called “conscience voting” by which, members. The next chance to act would be at the January
as a matter of conscience, no member would vote on legisla- 1973 Convention. Swank later didn’t recall why the resolu-
8 Division II Yearbook 2013