When it comes to playing and practice seasons in Division III, the current rules are a mishmash of Division I leftovers, piecemeal solutions and tradition.

The Division III Management Council's playing and practice seasons subcommittee hopes that its efforts this past year to analyze those rules will result in something that works -- and makes sense -- for today's Division III.

The subcommittee took on a comprehensive examination of playing and practice seasons about a year ago. Since then, the subcommittee has analyzed total playing season length, preseason practice opportunities and contest li-
mitations with an eye toward both cleaning up Bylaw 17 and providing a philosophical basis for any proposed legislation.

This January, the Division III membership will vote on a proposed playing and practice seasons model that subcommittee members think reflects both logic and the Division III philosophy.

Steve Argo, commissioner of the Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference and chair of the playing and practice seasons subcommittee, noted that the new model tries to make sense of some very complicated legislation.

"Bylaw 17 has always come up as a point of concern both from the membership and from the (national office) membership services staff," he said. "With current legislation, we're all over the place as far as different sports are concerned. The charge of the committee was to look at how Bylaw 17 is serving the membership and see how it can be more effective."

The proposed model calls for a total playing season length of 19 weeks, including practice opportunities, which would be a reduction from current legislation permitting 21 weeks. Fall sports and spring sports still would have a nontraditional segment of five weeks, and contests (or dates of competition) would average one to two per week. There would be 20 preseason practice opportunities for fall sports (with the exception of football, which would remain at 27) and 25 for winter and spring sports (see the accompanying chart).

The subcommittee began its work by looking at the 21-week season since its members had heard that most sports simply couldn't use all 21 weeks.

"When we started to look hard at the 21 weeks, we found it wasn't realistic," said subcommittee member Connee Zotos, athletics director at Drew University. "And there were so many inconsistencies between sports that didn't seem based on anything. We began to ask questions like, 'How long should a Division III student-athlete be in practice? How many practices does it take an athlete to prepare?'

"Over the years, it seems everybody's schedules just continue to expand, and we have not thought philosophically about what's the ideal number of practices, contests or scrimmages. The proposed model is grounded on a philosophical bent rather than simply what Division III has done in the past," Zotos said.

nd that was the goal, according to Bob Malekoff, director of athletics at the College of Wooster.

"A significant part of our charge was to determine what might be a logical amount of time for students to participate in intercollegiate athletics," said Malekoff, who also is a member of the subcommittee. "Because there were some peculiarities in each season, and because different sports have their own unique needs, we needed to compromise. So we developed a set of principles and asked questions like, 'How many practices are required to safely prepare a student-athlete for competition?' "

Guidance from feedback

As the subcommittee looked into current legislation and began asking questions, it also asked questions of others. It first prepared several models and asked the Management and Presidents Councils to review them. Then it asked the Division III Championships Committee and the Councils, as well as all the sports committees and coaches associations, to review its first chosen model.

The subcommittee received feedback leading it to increase practice opportunities in the spring and winter to accommodate weather concerns, for example, while maintaining 20 practice opportunities in the fall so as not to extend the school year.

The subcommittee also asked the Association-wide Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports for input regarding student-athlete safety. The current proposal reflects that input, particularly in that football's practice opportunities remain at 27 for safety reasons.

"The competitive-safeguards committee talked about not only football but other sports as well," Malekoff said, noting that other discussions included how long it took to prepare a pitcher in baseball or softball, for example.

Zotos pointed out that the proposed 20 practice opportunities for fall sports other than football is actually an increase for many sports.

"The majority of fall sports only had 16," she said, noting that participants in those sports may have not been well enough prepared to avoid injuries.

Malekoff said, though, that it's unlikely the model will make everyone happy.

"There's been a spirit of compromise that has yielded a reasonable model," he said. "Given all the variables, no one could develop a perfect model. But if one of the primary goals was to develop as equal a calendar as possible, then this is a good model."

Student-athlete view

It also was important to the subcommittee that it retain an average of one to two contests per week, for practical and philosophical reasons.

"A season-long average of two contests per week is reasonable," Malekoff said.

Subcommittee members support an average of one to two contests per week to accommodate athletes' time demands and demands on facilities and athletics support staff.

When the current version of the proposed model reaches the Convention floor in January, it's likely that the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee will support it, though the committee will not formally vote on its legislative positions until November. The committee generally opposes reductions of any kind, but its members seem more at ease with this model than the first ones proposed.

Amy Ashbrock, a former student-athlete at Wilmington College (Ohio), is one of two Division III SAAC representatives to the Management Council and is a member of the playing and practice seasons subcommittee.

"From the beginning, we didn't like any of them," Ashbrock said of SAAC members' opinions of the different models. "I personally think this particular model has gone in a better direction than the others."

In addition to opposing most reductions of any kind, SAAC members simply were concerned that preparation time be adequate, Ashbrock said.

"Our main concern was student-athletes being prepared enough to begin the season. And I personally understand there are many cost issues in bringing everybody back early in the fall," she said, though noting that not all the student-athletes are on board with the subcommittee's efforts to refrain from extending the school year.

The current model, which contains two preseason exempted scrimmages for every sport except football and provides at least 20 practice opportunities for each sport, addresses many of SAAC's concerns.

And it was SAAC's recommendation that the subcommittee examine the scrimmage issue. SAAC members also support the idea of consistency among sports.

"I think the model reflects the student-athletes' views more now," Ashbrock said.

Precursor to 'future' discussion?

Though the subcommittee hasn't heard much directly -- either positive or negative -- from the Division III membership yet regarding its latest proposal, subcommittee members have their ears to the ground.

"I think it's important to get more information out about the model and give ample opportunity for the membership to discuss it," Argo said. "We would love to hear some direct feedback from the membership. What I'm hearing now is second- or third-hand, and some people seem to like it and some don't. We'd like to hear more."

In addition to looking at ways to improve Bylaw 17, the playing and practice seasons subcommittee is actively involved in discussions about the "future of Division III," particularly as it pertains to the future of the nontraditional segment.

Malekoff pointed out that what happens with the most recent playing and practice seasons model on the Convention floor might give Division III presidents a sense of where the "future of Division III" discussion may be headed. Those presidents who see the division as too focused on "more is better" legislation and who believe that there is reason to subdivide may view debate on this model as a precursor to that futures discussion.

"The passing of this legislation would represent, at least in some people's eyes, a reasonable compromise," he said. "If those in favor of subdividing see no possibility for compromise on this and other issues, then they might see the ultimate splitting of Division III as all the more inevitable."