ANAHEIM, California -- Though the Division III forum included loud voices in opposition to subdivision, the results of the voting during the Division III business session January 13 helped illustrate the reasons for continued debate on whether Division III can continue as one division.

Both the lively debate on the Convention floor during the business session and the final outcome of the voting showed a great divide when it comes to playing and practice seasons, one of the issues driving the subdivision discussions. By a margin of only 30 institutions, the membership rejected Proposal No. 41, as amended, which would have standardized playing and practice seasons and provided for a modest reduction in contests in some sports.

Arguments that seemed to carry the day included the idea that institutions should limit themselves if they wish to do so, and that the proposal could harm independent institutions by reducing the overall number of contests in several sports. Members of the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee also spoke in opposition to the proposal, noting that they were opposed to any reductions in contests.

Several delegates spoke in favor of Proposal No. 41 and encouraged less of an emphasis on athletics, and one conference, the Empire Eight, even spoke in opposition to the proposal because the conference's presidents thought it didn't go far enough with reductions.

Ultimately, those wanting less -- and those persuaded that the proposal would clean up and standardize the playing and practice seasons -- failed to carry the day as No. 41, as amended, was defeated, 166-196-6.

The delegates overwhelmingly adopted Proposal No. 42, which will revise the automatic-qualification principles in team sports and result in an expansion of championships to accommodate a consistent bracket ratio of 1:6.5 for all sports, effective August 1, 2005.

The reluctance to reduce the length of the season -- however modestly -- and adopt other contest and playing-season limitations, along with the eagerness to expand championships opportunities, may hasten the subdivision discussion among institutions that are interested in pursuing a more restrictive athletics environment.

"For me, it reinforces the need for the discussion of the future of Division III," said Thomas Courtice, president of Ohio Wesleyan University. "It seems to me the vote reflects as many as a half dozen times in recent years that there were critical votes on key issues that really do mirror the Division III philosophy, and each time the vote has been split 50-50. It does speak to the fact that there is a de facto subdivision in the division already.

"I'm a proponent of working it out within the NCAA, but I think there's a fundamental difference within the division as reflected in this series of votes. I think we really have to be thoughtful about the conversation (regarding the future of Division III). There's too much of an issue there to ignore."

Championship conflicts

While the membership rejected the playing and practice seasons proposal put forward by the Management Council's playing and practice seasons subcommittee and sponsored by the Presidents Council, the membership embraced the championships enhancement proposal put forward by the Championships Committee and the Councils, adopting it by a 306-59-3 margin.

Proposal No. 43, a competing championships proposal sponsored by the University Athletic Association that also would have expanded access -- though in a different way -- was not voted upon because the adoption of 42 rendered it moot.

The morning business session began with debate about the merit of the two competing proposals, rather than the typical discussion of administrative details.

When it was time for the membership to adopt the NCAA Convention Notice and Program, Dick Rasmussen, executive secretary of the University Athletic Association, moved to reorder the legislative proposals to place the UAA-sponsored championships proposal before the governance-sponsored championships proposal. After a brief discussion, the motion to reorder failed, 250-87-1.

When formal debate and voting on the proposal took place in the afternoon, delegates seemed persuaded by the fact that No. 42 would yield a consistent bracket ratio of 1:6.5 for all sports while No. 43 would have provided for bracket ratios ranging from 1:6.2 to 1:7.25.

Those speaking in favor of No. 42 also pointed out that it would provide more access for women's sports. They argued No. 43 favored those sports with highest membership sponsorship and the most number of automatic-qualifying conferences, which tend to be men's sports.

Others seemed persuaded that No. 42 would increase access in all three automatic-qualification pools equitably: Pool A for the automatic qualifiers, Pool B for independent institutions and Pool C for at-large berths.

The rest of the legislation was adopted by paddle vote with little discussion. The proposal to add rugby as an emerging sport also was adopted with no debate. That adoption surprised some who had followed the membership's discussion on the matter over the past year. The proposal was recommended by the Association-wide Committee on Women's Athletics and was considered twice by the Management Council before that body finally endorsed it and passed it on to the Presidents Council.

For a list of all the legislation considered by the Division III membership and the results of all the votes, see the legislative summary on page A11.

In other legislative actions during the Division III business session, delegates:

Passed Proposal No. 41-1, the amendment-to-amendment of the playing and practice seasons Proposal No. 41, 184-179-2. That passage became moot when 41-1, as amended, was defeated. Many delegates who opposed the playing and practice season reductions seemed to have voted for the amendment-to-amendment, which modified No. 41 as it related to golf and tennis and was slightly more permissive than the original No. 41, and then against 41-1 as amended. The thinking there was that if a person favored fewer restrictions, it was better to have 41-1, as amended, than the original No. 41.

Defeated a motion to reconsider No. 41, as amended, by nearly the same margin as the original vote on the legislation: 165 for and 195 against, with four abstentions.

Heard Ira Zeff, athletics director at Nebraska Wesleyan University, move to divide out contest limitations in Proposal No. 41, as amended. The chair, Christopher Walker, faculty athletics representative at University of Redlands and chair of the Management Council, ruled the motion out of order. Zeff challenged the ruling, which led to a roll-call vote on the chair's ruling. The roll-call vote upheld the chair's ruling, 289-67-6. Proposal No. 41, as amended, ultimately failed, 166-196-6.

Adopted legislation to create a National Collegiate Championship in women's bowling, effective in 2003-04.