I doubt there has ever been legislation before an NCAA Convention that would be more harmful to more institutions than this restructuring plan. --Bob Murphy, athletic director   San Jose State University

Tremendous emotional strain lies behind what is now Article Nine of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's bylaws. The NCAA membership, at its 1978 national convention held in Atlanta last January, engaged in heated debate while hammering out a new version of Article Nine, the "Divisional Membership Criteria."

Essentially, the bylaw, as approved January 13, 1978, splits Division I football--the so-called football elite--into two subsets--Division I-A and I-AA. The results of this restructing plan, which Bob Murphy, the Ivy League and numerous other NCAA members opposed, had, on the surface, little impact. The old Division I was composed of 144 members. Its new equivalent, Division I-A, has 139. Because they could not meet the criteria established for eligibility in Division I-A, five schools dropped into I-AA. In addition, 28 Division II schools moved up to I-AA to form the small, first-year grouping.

To qualify for Division I-A, a school must sponsor at least eight varsity intercollegiate sports, including football in Division I, and must schedule at least 60 per cent of its football games against I-A opponents. In addition, the school must fulfill one of the following three criteria:

--Average more than 17,000 in paid attendance per home football game in the past four years.

--Have a stadium with a minimum seating capacity of 30,000 and have averaged a minimum paid attendance of 17,000 per home football game in at least one of the past four years.

--Sponsor 12 or more varsity intercollegiate sports, including football and basketball, in Division 1.

This last provision, known as the Ivy Amendment, helped a number of schools (including four Ivies) which otherwise would have been excluded from I-A, get into the top division. (All eight Ivy League schools are currently in Division I-A.) The provision was suggested by the Ivy League with regard for its traditionally broad-based intercollegiate athletics programs.

Schools wishing to remain in Division I-A must meet these standards by January 13, 1981.

Opponents of the restructuring plan, like Jim Litvak, executive director of the Ivy Group Council, express a cautious satisfaction in the restructuring plan's limited effects thus far. In contrast, proponents of the plan, like Ed Krause, athletic director at Notre Dame, are openly disappointed that the NCAA membership has not been able to break apart Division I football more drastically, providing what he says would be "a very realistic approach" to national legislation of collegiate football.

Krause said yesterday that the 139-member Division I-A is still too large a group. "There are 75-80 schools who have more problems regarding major college football competition" than do the other schools in I-A, he said. Krause says that the NCAA, which now has three divisions, should, in effect, expand to four divisions to provide a more suitable alignment of schools for lawmaking purposes.

"Take, for example, the Ivy League," Krause says. "They have their own regulations, and that's fine. But a major part of the people in I-A don't agree with their rules." Consequently, Krause suggests, the diversity of opinion places restrictions on many schools who do not want such limitations.

A classic example of the problem is the 30-95 rule, Article Five, Section Five, Clause C, which says: "There shall be (for Division I football) an annual limit of 30 on the number of initial financial aid awards which may be made to student athletes, and there shall be an annual limit of 95 on the total number of financial awards which may be in effect the same year, including initial (first-year) awards."

That bylaw has taken full effect this year, and many college football observers have suggested it is responsible for the more even level of competition surfacing in the current collegiate season.

Critics of the restructuring plan have charged that a new division which consisted of the top 40 or 50 football powers in the nation might do away with the 30-95 rule, opening a financial Pandora's Box which could lead to a type of professionalization of the collegiate football ranks.

The big-time football schools have denied this charge. But in an emotionally charged speech at the 1978 convention, Murphy stood up and said, "Behind a lot of this (support for restructuring), we see schools with like desires on financial aid limitations. Are there schools in this room that do not like the 30 and the 95? If so, why don't they stand up and say so?"

Of course, no one admitted to holding that opinion; but more importantly, no one could provide, as Murphy later requested, other concrete reasons for supporting the proposed restructuring.

On the surface, the plan seems to have trivial implications. Litvak admits that there's a great deal of ego involved--a team's pride in being a part of the top college football division. Yet he calls the restructuring plan "stupid and offensive," explaining it implies that a commitment to college football means you have a big stadium and high attendance. "The plan does not ask for a measurement of commitment, it asks, does the market accept your product?" he explains.

Just what the plan does accomplish, or intends to accomplish, is the major point of dispute. Krause says, "We have a game that's great and we want to keep it that way." But many NCAA members doubt the restructuring plan will help that greatness.

This is the first of a two-part article on the NCAA's restructuring of Division I football. Part Two--the pros and cons of restructuring--will appear next Friday.