The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- July 5, 1999

Forum conducted to review nontraditional-season survey

Nontraditional seasons -- and whether there should be NCAA legislation modifying them -- continue to be an important topic in Division III.

Division III members at the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics Convention in Reno, Nevada, examined the issue and discussed a survey recently conducted by the Division III Management Council Subcommittee to Review Nontraditional Seasons.

"We are trying to give as many different angles and approaches to this topic as possible," said Tim Gleason, commissioner of the Ohio Athletic Conference, moderator for the Division III breakout session on nontraditional seasons.

The panelists were Al Bean, athletics director at the University of Southern Maine; Dan Bridges, athletics director at Pomona-Pitzer Colleges; Bob Bunnell, athletics director at Franklin and Marshall College; and Judith Sweet, athletics director at the University of California, San Diego.

A history of nontraditional-seasons

Sweet gave the attendees -- who numbered in excess of 110 -- a history of Division III playing and practice seasons and the evolution of NCAA legislation to address the issue.

"In 1986, there was recognition of the fact that the number of contests and the playing season really had no limit," Sweet said. "For example, in some cases there were 120 contests or more being played in Division I baseball."

At the time, Sweet was serving on an Association-wide committee to examine the issue.

The original NCAA legislation had three objectives, Sweet said: "No. 1, to control costs; No. 2, to permit student-athletes to explore other parts of life; and No. 3, to allow for establishment of broad-based sports programs."

Sweet also discussed how at the time Division III members recognized they had different needs from Divisions I and II.

"It was clear to us on the Division III committee that the issues were different. What made sense for each division was different," she said.

Divisions I and II settled on 26-week playing and practice seasons, while Division III decided on 21 weeks.

"This decision was not without a lot of controversy at the time," Sweet said. "Over the years, there has been some tweaking of the legislation, but no major changes."

Survey inconclusive

Bean, chair of the Division III Management Council Subcommittee to Review Nontraditional Seasons, discussed the subcommittee's recent Division III membership survey and its results.

"At a straw vote at the 1999 NCAA Convention, a majority of people wanted some change in the nontraditional seasons," he said, noting that the Management Council decided further research was necessary.

The subcommittee developed a pilot survey and then a final survey, which was sent to all Division III members in March. Forty-two percent of the Division III members returned their survey, but the results did not provide a clear direction for the subcommittee.

"We found that the survey is really somewhat inconclusive," Bean said. "If you look at the survey results, you'll see that there really is no one clear direction. At this point, we're interested in hearing more comment and more discussion. We're very aware that there are some institutions and some conferences that feel very strongly about this issue -- on both sides. (The Management Council) would like more direction before we propose any legislation."

Bunnell, who took care to explain that his opinions were his own and not those of his institution or his conference, spoke in opposition of placing further limits on nontraditional seasons.

"I do not believe that there should be any major restrictions on nontraditional seasons in Division III beyond what we already have," Bunnell said. "There's really no quantitative data from coaches or student-athletes, and no clear direction can be gained from the Management Council straw poll or surveys."

Bunnell gave a number of reasons he opposed restrictions. "Division III student-athletes are just as committed to their sports as their Division I and Division II counterparts," he said. "They are not interested in cutting back. Before we think about cutting back, let's do a market survey and our market is student-athletes. Most student-athletes at Division III institutions consider themselves serious athletes. To cut back sends them the message that we're not as serious as they are."

Bunnell also pointed to athletics opportunities as important recruiting tools. "Why make it more difficult to recruit by offering less athletics opportunities?" he asked. "These people are our customers, and since when do customers want less? Division III is able to regulate itself. We cannot afford to mistreat our student-athletes because they would simply stop participating."

Bunnell said that institutions experiencing a problem with nontraditional seasons should deal with it on the institutional level. "Why don't we just tend to our own gardens?" he said. "If nontraditional seasons are a problem at your school, then take steps to solve that problem. Ask your student-athletes if they want cutbacks. We don't need additional legislation to address what I believe is a problem for the minority of us."

Inconsistent with Division III philosophy?

Bridges favored modifying the current nontraditional-season legislation.

"What really concerns me about the current model is that it encourages teams to play full 21-week season," Bridges said. "I believe we are being inconsistent with our own philosophy. I wish to encourage the Division III leadership to continue looking at this issue."

Bridges proposed a model that would treat all sports consistently with a 16-week playing season plus a five-week limited-contact period, totaling 21 weeks. Outside competition would be prohibited during the five-week limited contact period.

Bridges said his intent with the proposal was to provide institutional flexibility in determining playing seasons. He also urged the Division III Management Council to investigate the issue further. "Basing conclusions on this somewhat ambiguous survey and giving up on pursuing this further would be a terrible thing," he said.

John S. Biddiscombe, athletics director at Wesleyan University (Connecticut) and chair of the Division III Management Council, encouraged members to continue to provide feedback on the issue.

"The challenge before the Management Council is how do we most clearly define the option," Biddiscombe said. "If we could get any further specific ideas from your institution or your conference, that would be tremendously helpful."

The Division III Management Council Subcommittee to Review Nontraditional Seasons is scheduled to meet via teleconference on July 8. It is expected to forward recommendations to the Division III Management Council for consideration at the council's next meeting, July 26 and 27 in Hilton Head, South Carolina.