The Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee appreciates the hard work that the Division III Championships Committee's playing and practice seasons subcommittee has poured into an attempt to make all parties content with an amendment to the current rule.

Because the matter touches on one of the basic tenets of the Division III student-athlete experience, Division III SAAC members have carefully reviewed and discussed all of the proposals that the subcommittee has suggested, including the current proposal that will be put to a vote on the Convention floor in January.

A fundamental principle we hold dear to our hearts in these discussions is that Division III student-athletes want to participate in their sport as much as possible. Division III student-athletes make a conscious choice to be part of a team or teams (in the case of multisport athletes) because we simply love to play our sports. Further regulating and limiting playing and practice seasons will not enhance the student-athlete experience; rather, it will take away opportunities from student-athletes who already are involved in many other areas on campus.

The current models for playing and practice seasons take away time from the student-athlete to concentrate on academics and participate in other activities on campus. For a large majority of Division III student-athletes, practices do not cut into study time; they actually help student-athletes manage their time more efficiently. Studies have shown that student-athletes perform better academically when they are in season. In addition, at many Division III institutions, student-athletes' grade-point averages are greater than or equal to those of the rest of the student body.

What do those findings tell us? For one thing, Division III student-athletes are, almost by nature, well-rounded. Division III student-athletes are focused not only on their sport and academics but also on many other campus activities. Many Division III student-athletes are officers or members of clubs on campus and involved in many other extracurricular activities. It is in the Division III student-athlete's nature to be involved. The notion of cutting the playing and practice season by a few games or a few practices, or by a lot, seems misguided, however well-intentioned.

The Division III SAAC also questions the issue of competitive equity when it comes to further regulating playing and practice seasons. If anything runs counter to the Division III philosophy, it is the premise that winning is above all else. As much as we all love to win, participation and opportunity are the two primary pillars of Division III athletics. The idea of regulating another institution so that your institution has a better chance of defeating them only perpetuates the notion that winning is the only thing that matters. Why are we seeking to regulate each other so we can beat each other on the field?

Competitive inequity exists in sports naturally. Some athletes are better than others and some coaches know how to make the best use of the athletes they have in order to have a successful team. Thus, competitive equity is a sort of "holy grail." If it is used as a rationale for limiting games and practices for schools that use the maximum number of practice and game opportunities just so that other schools have a chance to compete with them, it is used falsely. The institution that has the best coaches, the best student-athletes and the best administration will come out on top no matter how you slice the playing and practice seasons. And if your school does not attract the most skilled student-athletes, that is fine because that is not what the Division III philosophy is about.

Proponents of limiting playing and practice seasons also point to administrators who are having a tough time balancing the use of facilities with varsity sports, club sports, intramurals, the general student body and the community. They say many schools just don't have the funding to expand or rebuild. They say there is too much stress put on equipment managers who must serve sports with overlapping seasons. Multisport coaches have to work longer hours. Athletic trainers have to work long days and be available for practices that start at 5:45 a.m. and go until 11 p.m. in the winter.

We address this issue in two words: institutional control. Everyone has heard this before, but it begs further explanation. The Division III landscape is so diverse with so many different kinds of institutions and different kinds of athletics departments. This is what makes our division so special -- this diversity is not a problem, but a blessing.

A prospective student-athlete has so many choices, all within Division III. There are obviously some highly competitive schools and there are some schools whose focus is not on athletics, and this difference is healthy and good. This is the heart of the Division III character: diversity of choice and diversity of opinion.

We must allow coaches, athletics administrators and presidents to claim some responsibility themselves without asking the NCAA to regulate every aspect of the student-athlete experience. There are certain guidelines and rules in place, and now it is up to each of us to do what is right for each of our institutions and conferences. If that means that our institution chooses to eliminate the non-traditional season, then so be it. If a certain conference votes to limit the nontraditional season, then that is what is best for that conference. But we cannot seek to tell each institution what is best for it and its student-athletes. Let the institution or conference decide for itself what is best. So what if other schools in your conference are playing nontraditional seasons and your institution is not? If you really believe that this is what is best for your school, then do it.

One final point is the idea that adding two exempted scrimmages will somehow "alleviate" the loss of games that many sports will experience. We feel that there is a certain intensity and passion that one brings to a "real" game (that is, one that counts on your record), that one simply cannot bring to a scrimmage. It is a fact that coaches use scrimmages to get all players into a game, regardless of skill level. Scrimmages also are used to determine which players play well together, and those contests often are not coached the same as a regular-season game. Simply put, scrimmages do not equal regular-season competition. We do not feel that the "trade" of regular-season games for exempted scrimmages is a fair one.

This most recent proposal seems, prima facie, to be a compromise, but we as a committee do not feel comfortable with the step we would be taking here. If this proposal passes at the Convention, is this the last we are going to hear about limiting practice and playing seasons? On the contrary, we feel that this could potentially prompt institutions to try to further legislate each other by limiting opportunities for student-athletes to play.

The Division III SAAC is opposed to the proposed playing and practice seasons model. We are confident that we are speaking on behalf of a large group of student-athletes, since the position expressed here represents the large majority of feedback we have received from our peers to this point.

John Galgano is a former baseball student-athlete at Manhattanville College, and he is a member of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. Galgano was the Division III SAAC representative to the Management Council from 2000 to 2002.