The ongoing debate over balancing student-athlete time demands figures to gain momentum over the next several months as the Division I membership considers three legislative proposals that could adjust playing and practice seasons in all sports.

Proposal Nos. 04-40-A, 04-40-B and 04-40-C are likely to keep the conversation lively when they are discussed at the NCAA Convention January 7-10 in Dallas. Merits of the measures will be aired during the Division I Legislative Review Forum Saturday, January 8, followed by the Division I Management Council's more formal review January 9. A 60-day membership comment period ensues in January and February, followed by final votes in April.

The three proposals intend the following:

• No. 04-40-A -- To amend the maximum number of contests in certain sports, eliminate the event certification process and eliminate certain annual exemptions.

• No. 04-40-B -- In sports other than basketball, to amend the maximum number of contests in certain sports, eliminate the event certification process and eliminate certain annual exemptions. Further, in basketball, to limit the maximum number of contests to 27 and to permit an institution to participate in an additional multi-team event each year (not to exceed four games), restricted to one team per conference and one appearance per institution in the same event in a four-year period.

• No. 04-40-C -- To amend the maximum number of contests in certain sports, eliminate the event certification process and eliminate certain annual exemptions except for alumni contests.

At its core, each proposal attempts to balance student-athletes' athletics competition with the rest of activities involved in the college experience.

Development of the proposals stems in part from a charge the Division I Board of Directors gave to the governance structure in January 2002 to study student-athlete time demands in the context of playing and practice seasons. The Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet's playing and practice seasons subcommittee was the first to take that on in earnest.

Carol Reep, senior associate director of athletics at Butler University and chair of the subcommittee at the time, said it wasn't an easy task since the sports governed by the NCAA have unique qualities that many participants don't want to see changed or "improved upon." But after a thorough review of the nonchampionship segment and the number of games in each sport, the subcommittee created Proposal No. 04-40-A, which it believed to be the most accurate and equitable way of documenting the number of contests in which student-athletes compete.

In essence, the subcommittee's recommendation is that each contest in which an institution competes (including the so-called exempted or certified contests) should count against the maximum contest limitations for every sport.

"We saw people were using a lot of exemptions to play more than what the (maximum) number is,'' said Reep. "What we tried to do was create some sort of consistency. Our intent wasn't to reduce the number of contests played, but to count what you play. Sometimes people tried to make it bigger than that, but it really is to count what you play.''

Challenging exemptions

That presented challenges in some sports, particularly men's basketball, in which certified events allow institutions to compete in up to four games in some events but count only one toward the maximum contest limits. Proposal No. 04-40-A would make all four games count toward the maximum of 29 regular-season contests. Some believed the proposal would make current certified events less attractive for institutions.

The subcommittee also took into account the "two-in-four'' rule, which states that an institution can compete in a certified event only twice in a four-year period. The rule recently withstood a lawsuit from event promoters -- who claimed that it restricted free trade -- when the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 15 reversed a lower-court decision and left the "two-in-four'' rule intact.

The playing and practice seasons subcommittee was aware of the litigation when it came up with its proposal, but the broader concern was coming up with a plan to meet the directive given to it by the Board of Directors.

"We felt we did due diligence based on what we were asked to accomplish, which was to look at time demands on student-athletes,'' said Dru Hancock, the current subcommittee chair and associate commissioner at the Big 12 Conference. "That was the first issue involved. It really didn't have to do with any other element of collegiate athletics. We really didn't look at certified contests or annual exemptions. We looked at how much time does it take an athlete to participate in his or her sport. Over several years, it was easy to lose sight of that as the major premise as to why we were doing our work.''

Other alternatives

Hancock and the rest of the subcommittee weren't surprised to see their proposal amended in the form of Proposal Nos. 04-40-B and 04-40-C.

"I don't think any of us from the subcommittee is convinced that the legislation will be part and parcel to what we suggested and what our (Division I Championships/Competition) cabinet subsequently endorsed,'' Hancock said. "We do hope that the bulk of it will remain intact. Whether it's B or C or some other alternatives by sport, I hope the main pieces of our legislation will stay intact.''

Proposal No. 04-40-B, which comes from the Northeast Conference and the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference, would allow men's basketball teams to participate in a maximum of 27 contests, plus be allowed to participate in a certified event every year, as long as it is not in the same event over a four-year period.

Northeast Commissioner John Iamarino believes certified events should be encouraged because they are good for mid-major institutions.

"They give our programs a chance to play some upper-level opponents, sometimes on a neutral court,'' Iamarino said. "They give us a chance to schedule regular-season tournaments that otherwise wouldn't be available. It's in our best interests to see those events continue.''

Rich Ensor, commissioner of the MAAC, said Proposal No. 04-40-B has received significant support from league members.

"This issue dates back almost two decades,'' Ensor said. "I can remember being on a committee that dealt with this 14 or 15 years ago. This is the latest effort to come up with a solution and provide some kind of system that we can all work with.''

The other amendment, Proposal No. 04-40-C, comes from the Ivy Group and has simple roots, according to Senior Associate Director Carolyn Campbell-McGovern. She said Ivy institutions were concerned that alumni games, particularly those played in women's athletics, would count toward the maximum number of regular-season contests.

"Essentially, all we are trying to do is get alumni games back in,'' Campbell-McGovern said. "Currently, those alumni games don't count against women's sports. If Proposal No. 04-40-A is adopted as written, then alumni games would count the same as regular Division I competition.

"Alumni games are more of a promotional event.''

Campbell-McGovern pointed out that many times alumni make up both teams and that current student-athletes participate when there aren't enough people to field a team.

"It's not a real game, and it probably isn't as strenuous as a real practice,'' she said. "We think this clearly meets the definition of what an exhibition game is.''

With the development of the three proposals, the options for finding the balance between time demands on student-athletes and the length of their playing and practice seasons would appear to be in place. All that remains is for the Division I membership to agree on the right approach.

"All we were trying to do was give an accurate account of what we felt should be reflective of each student-athlete's participation -- whether they are a two-semester sport or a one-semester sport,'' Hancock said of Proposal No. 04-40-A. "We wanted to present something that made sense across the board.

"We understand as a subcommittee that change is always a little bit difficult and somewhat controversial. We felt that we did what we were directed to do and that we would send it out to the membership for debate. That's where it is, and that's where it should be.''