Current rules allow for a 12th game during years in which there are 14 Saturdays from the first permissible playing date through the last playing date in November. But the Big 12 says a permanent additional game will permit flexibility in scheduling without lengthening the season, establish consistency in the number of games each team plays each year and help some institutions meet the new Division I-A membership criteria.

"We're trying to take a leadership position on this issue," said University of Oklahoma Director of Athletics Joe Castiglione. "We've watched the changes that have taken place in Division I-A over the last few years, as well as what is being discussed currently with the changes in the BCS structure. We think this legislation has merit.

"It's been discussed throughout Division
I-A over the last few years. At various times, individual universities, perhaps even conferences, have talked in favor of similar legislation. We think it's time to get the appropriate sponsorship and put it before the membership for discussion, debate and hopefully approval."

The exception to the 11-game regular season was introduced in 1999. It allowed for a 12th game in 2002 and 2003, but that will not happen again until 2008, and not after that until 2013, 2014 and 2019.

The Big 12 proposal cites a survey conducted by a Division I-A conference after the 2002 football season revealing that most of that league's football student-athlete respondents actually preferred a 12-game season. "An annual 12-game regular season likely is contingent on postseason opportunities remaining at a maximum of two (including the conference championship, if applicable, and one bowl game) so that a team could participate only in a total of 14 games in any one season," the proposal states.

Castiglione, who noted that the proposal does not require schools to play a 12th game, said the benefits from expansion to a permanent 12th game are numerous. He also cited NCAA studies that have shown that additional games and practices have little, if any, impact on injuries to players. He said statistics show that game-injury rates per 1,000 athletics events from 1986 to 2001 ranged between 30.5 and 44.9, compared to 36.5 and 41.9 in 2002 and 2003, respectively.

Additionally, he said, the impact on revenue cannot be overlooked.

"Of course, one has to consider the economic impact and the financial benefit for those institutions when they play an additional home game -- and maybe even in some cases the additional game, period -- because of the guarantees schools might be able to get for that game," he said. "The impact is not just on the athletics program, but on the entire campus and the community."

Conference support

Though officials from several of the 11 Division I-A conferences have yet to conduct formal discussions on the proposal, an informal poll shows many leaning toward supporting the legislation.

Athletics directors from the Big East and Pacific-10 Conferences likely would be in favor of such a change, according to spokesmen from those leagues. Bret Gilliland, associate commissioner from the Mountain West Conference, also senses support.

Sun Belt Commissioner Wright Waters thinks his league will favor it. "As long as more than half of Division I-A has to play six or seven home games to meet their financial requirements, something has got to give. I think this is the only way it works if our No. 1 concern is financial," he said.

Waters said he also posed the question to football players representing the league's student-athlete advisory committee. "They had no problem playing a 12th game," he said.

Shane Lyons, associate commissioner for compliance and governance with the Atlantic Coast Conference, said ACC officials plan to discuss the proposal at meetings this fall.

"There are pros and cons to the proposal," he said. "Obviously, the thing that's important to us is maintaining the championship game, and I think what the Big 12 has put together does that."

Concern from coaches

The American Football Coaches Association (AFCA), however, is against the proposal, AFCA Executive Director Grant Teaff said.

"Division I-A football coaches have been heavily against a 12th game," he said. "The system currently in place allows for a 12th game every so many years, and coaches feel strongly that (a permanent 12th game would be) very difficult on the student-athletes."

However, Teaff said coaches understand that this ultimately may be an administrative decision. But he said he has talked with coaches who tell him their student-athletes also oppose the proposal.

"I think it needs some study because it needs to be a consensus of everyone," he said.

Presidents also will have to weigh their longtime concern about lengthening the playing season against the benefits of the permanent 12th game, though they ultimately signed off on the 12-game exception in 1999.

Former University of Tulsa President Bob Lawless, who served stints as chair of the Division I Board of Directors and the NCAA Executive Committee from 1998 through 2003, has said a 12th game is not consistent with the values of intercollegiate athletics.

"In my opinion, the only reason you add a game is financial," Lawless told The NCAA News in June. "You don't make that decision because you think the young men need to play one more game to develop their skills. The overriding motivation is to bring in additional revenue. Any time we make a decision based principally on revenue, then we've got the wrong factors driving us."

Revenue issues

The Division I-A Athletic Directors Association sees the matter differently because of what the additional revenue can do for various programs, Executive Director Dutch Baughman said.

"While we don't subscribe to the notion of doing things that simply generate revenue for the sake of revenue, we do want to support those revenue events that make sense for other reasons," he said. "In this case, the 12th game can help a lot of our schools, whether it be for bowl qualification or membership criteria or whatever the particular institution's perspective is.

"The revenue opportunity is something that will be beneficial to all the schools."

Baughman said that while his association does not differentiate among Division I-A conferences, he noted that the schools previously known as the BCS schools seem to support the proposal for one set of reasons, while those previously known as coalition schools support it for other reasons.

"For example," he said. "The coalition schools like a 12th game because with the membership criteria being what they are -- especially the home attendance requirement -- coupled with the fact that so many coalition schools will schedule games they may not get a return game for, the 12th game gives them an extra home game for which they can schedule someone to fill the spot of a game that would not be returned.

"It helps them in regard to membership criteria, not only in attendance, but the minimum number of competitions against Division I-A opponents," Baughman said.

Castiglione agreed that the legislation could assist those institutions struggling with the new criteria. And, he said, the additional exposure can only help college football as a whole.

"Data support the notion that perhaps college football is enjoying unprecedented popularity," he said. "Why not take advantage of an opportunity if in fact it still stays within the principles and values we all share for the student-athletes we represent and the programs we oversee?"

Castiglione said an additional game would not hurt student-athletes academically, noting that adding one Saturday game should not cut into a student-athlete's time in the classroom or ability to do school work. He said one additional game also would not significantly increase the number of practices.

"The votes were in place some years ago to allow the 12th game in certain years," he said. "It's hard to stand on the side of that argument against the 12th game when we're already allowing it in certain years."

The effective date for the legislation would be August 2005, though Castiglione said that date could be amended if the membership thought it needed more time to set up schedules or handle other details.

"We think it's time to put some substance into this idea -- put it before our member institutions, try to educate people as to the rationale and then encourage a healthy discussion and debate," he said. "We're certainly going to be passionate about pushing the proposal forward so we can get to that stage of making a good, sound decision."