NASHVILLE, Tennessee -- Division II Convention delegates achieved perfect harmony in Music City.

Administrators considered a legislative package of 53 proposals, one amendment-to-amendment and one resolution without a single defeat, a Division II first. Not only did they act strongly in the affirmative during the January 12 business session, they did so quickly as they addressed their business over a period of less than two and one-half hours, hitting no sour notes along the way.

While much of the business was routine -- almost one-third of the proposals were approved through consent packages -- two issues commanded widespread interest. In particular, delegates approved Proposal No. 23, which will place a requirement on the number of academic credits that student-athletes must pass in the previous term, and Proposal No. 54, which mandated the formation of a project team to study championships-eligibility issues.

Proposal No. 23 was developed by the Division II Academic Requirements Committee, partly in response to concerns that transfer student-athletes were enrolling in Division II programs with insufficient educational backgrounds and commitments. The proposed legislation, subsequently supported by the Management and Presidents Councils, would require any student-athlete, whether a transfer or a currently enrolled student-athlete, to earn six semester or six quarter hours of academic credit the preceding term (for transfers, the credits would have to be transferable degree credit).

While the membership showed little or no concern with applying such a standard to transfers, concern was expressed about using the legislation as part of the continuing-eligibility process.

Sam Goodwin, director of athletics at Henderson State University, said the registrar and financial aid officers at his institution had indicated that the rule would be a nightmare for them as they hustled to certify the eligibility of student-athletes, especially between the fall and spring terms.

University of West Alabama Athletics Director Dee Outlaw acknowledged that passing six hours is minimal, but he was concerned that the requirement could place student-athletes in sports that overlap from semester to semester at double jeopardy.

Finally, Nate Salant, commissioner of the Gulf South Conference, said that while few would disagree with the spirit of the proposal, the implementation might be more difficult. He said the real issue involves whether academic officials will have time to evaluate grades while determining if the courses that are passed fit with the student-athlete's degree program. Salant also believed it is inappropriate to apply such a rule to freshmen. "This says that we have added freshmen to our programs and after one term we will say, 'You are a failure; you can't play.' "

But those backing the proposal were equally strong in their support.

"Six hours is a minimal standard," said Arthur Kirk, president of Saint Leo University. "Zero hours is no standard and makes a mockery of the notion of the student-athlete."

That attitude was most strongly articulated by the student-athletes themselves. The Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee spoke aggressively to the proposal, twice earning applause from some delegates.

Marius Dan from Wingate University said that passing the proposal would send the message "that we are students first." Later, Jaime Petsch of St. Cloud State University noted that Proposal No. 31 (later approved) would move academics to the top of the Division II philosophy statement. Defeating Proposal 23, she said, therefore would be alarmingly inconsistent with the division's philosophy.

In the end, the membership passed the proposal by a vote of 207-47 with two abstentions.

Presidents Council Chair Kay Schallenkamp of Emporia State University was pleased with the way the Division II SAAC exercised influence on such a major academic issue. "I thought they demonstrated commitment of Division II student-athletes to academic integrity," she said. "The strength of their argument was very persuasive, and I was very proud of them."

Proposal No. 23 will take effect after the fall term of 2005 and will be applicable to hours earned during the 2005 fall term.

Championships eligibility issue

One reason the business sessions moved so quickly was the withdrawal of Proposal Nos. 37 and 38. Those proposals addressed various championships selection criteria; both were opposed by Division II Championships Committee, the Management Council and the Presidents Council. The opposition was based on the unintended consequences of Nos. 37 and 38 rather than the spirit of the proposals.

In the alternative, the Presidents Council committed through Proposal No. 54 to assemble a project team to examine the issues contained in Nos. 37 and 38. The sponsors accepted the alternate approach and withdrew their proposals.

The Division II Administrative Committee has identified members of the project team. Dave Riggins, athletics director at Mars Hill College, will chair the group.

"The value of Proposals 37 and 38 is that they got us to moving forward," Riggins said. "The sponsors of those two proposals (the North Central, Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletics, Peach Belt and Sunshine State Conferences) have served Division II well because without them, we would not be as far along as we are."

Riggins said that a large part of the problem is that Division II institutions and conferences are not accustomed to dealing with what he termed "marquee cases of ineligibility."

"If we look at the bylaws we have in place," Riggins said, "if those bylaws are applied you would see the cases in which student-athletes are to be taken out of competition. We need to do a better job of educating our institutions and sports committees about these issues, but that's understandable since they haven't seen many cases in the past. But we need to set up a system to get at it."

Riggins and others praised the diversity of the 26-member project team (see the accompanying roster), which includes 15 athletics directors or associate directors, three coaches, three commissioners, two senior woman administrators, two compliance officers, one chief executive officer, one faculty athletics representative and one student-athlete.

"It is paramount that we bring a group like this together," Riggins said. "This is a well-thought-out group. It includes those who are deeply involved with NCAA sports committees as well as a number of people who are not as close to the system. That's important because they bring a different light. We need as many entities involved in this as possible."

Although the resolution calls for the group to share findings with the membership by the 2005 Convention, Riggins would not guarantee that legislative proposals will be available by then. "We will shorten the time frame as much as possible while still doing a good job," he said. "We will be quick, but we will never hurry."

Perfect game

As it happens, "being quick without hurrying" may also describe the Division II business session.

"I know that some people might look at this and say that there was nothing controversial to be considered at this Convention," said Division II Vice-President Mike Racy. "But the fact that we needed a 15-page question-and-answer document shows that there were a number of complicated issues that the delegates considered. Our efficiency in the business session is the result of the Management Council's and Presidents Council's hard work throughout the year.

"The questions involving championships eligibility were potentially contentious, but Division II's leadership saw the merit in the spirit of both proposals and got in front of the issue with the formation of the project team."

In fact, the business session was breathtakingly fast. Committee reports were made available through the Division II Yearbook, which was distributed at registration. With that part of the program streamlined, voting began at 8:39 a.m., within half an hour of being called to order. Even with a 20-minute break at midmorning, delegates finished voting by 11:02 a.m.

Still, delegates had plenty of opportunity for debate and education throughout the four-day Convention. Saturday's educational session on financial aid limits (see related story, page A10) was especially well-attended, with administrators on both sides taking advantage of the opportunity to make their views known.

"History has shown us that when Division II needs to, it will slow down and do what it takes to address an issue properly," Racy said. "But the fact that we went through this year's business session at such a fast pace shouldn't infer that there is no substance involved.

"Every proposal on the agenda today was thoroughly considered and reviewed before the votes were cast. I consider the quick business session an endorsement by the delegates that the Division II governance groups are getting it right."