One of those issues currently in the legislative pipeline is Proposal No. 2000-106, which would require preseason events in basketball to be counted toward an institution's maximum limit of regular-season games.

The proposal, which the Division I Management Council saw for the first time in October and sent to the membership for comment without taking a stance, would add one game to the regular season in basketball while eliminating preseason certified contests. The proposal also would permit an institution to participate in either one informal scrimmage against a four-year collegiate institution or one exhibition contest against a non-Division I four-year college in addition to 29 regular-season games.

Like most of you, I've listened to and read with interest the arguments being advanced by media and coaches alike about the need to retain these preseason basketball games as exempted events. While I support strong basketball, I have grown increasingly concerned about the amount of preseason competition being played around the Western Hemisphere, and I think that it's time to limit the amount of competition involving our young people. Let me tell you why.

First, it has been my experience that academically, some of our basketball players often are the most at-risk athletes we have on our campuses. They travel more and they play more games. Therefore, not having them on campus for class and study works against their success in the classroom and, frankly, puts them more at risk. By reducing the number of games, they can stay home and go to class more often. I think this is the most compelling argument to limit the number of contests.

Second, extra games and extra competition give a competitive advantage to those who have that opportunity. Taking a team to a far-away venue gives both the coaches and athletes more time to practice and compete, and if those opportunities -- which include

opportunities for coaches to recruit -- are not routinely available to all teams, then it is a competitive advantage to only those who can be there. That's not fair.

Third, I have heard sports commentators and others talk about how important the early games are because you see match-ups you wouldn't otherwise see that early in the season, which is good for basketball. While I think those arguments really are for better television ratings, there is nothing in this proposed legislation that prohibits those types of match-ups. If they really are as important as the coaches and others argue, let them play. They just count against the limit, that's all. And with the addition of the one regular-season game under the proposed legislation, schools don't stand to "lose" the number of contests that some people think. For example, under the current rules, a school that participates in a two-game exempted event would play 29 games but be "charged" only for 28. Proposal No. 2000-106 essentially maintains the 29-game total by adding one regular-season contest. Even though schools that play a two-game event would be charged for two games instead of one, the extra regular-season game allows institutions not to "lose" that contest. Similarly, institutions that play a three-game event (eight-team field) would only "lose" one contest.

Last, I think this proposal will be good for basketball. It helps level the playing field. It improves the chances for our students to truly be students, and returns the management of basketball to the campuses where it belongs.

For those reasons, I think we should support Proposal No. 2000-106.

C. William Byrne is the director of athletics at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, and a member of the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet's Certified Contests Subcommittee.