The Division I-A football odometer has clicked from 11 to 12.

At the April 28 Division I Board of Directors meeting in Indianapolis, Division
I-A members of the Board agreed that beginning with the 2006 season, Division I-A teams will be allowed to schedule a 12th regular-season football game every year. The 12-game proposal, however, was defeated by the Board's Division I-AA members, which means Division I-AA teams will continue to operate under the 11-game schedule.

The 12-game measure is permissive legislation, meaning Division I-A teams may schedule a 12th game if they choose to do so. Advocates of the proposal say schools will be able to play the additional game during what otherwise would have been a bye week. In that way, the action does not lengthen the season, something presidents have been on record as opposing.

Eleven-game regular seasons have been the norm since 1970, but three years ago the Board approved a measure that allowed for a 12th regular-season game in years in which there are 14 Saturdays from the first permissible playing date through the last playing date in November. The 2002 and 2003 campaigns were the first 12-game seasons under that rule; the next would have been in 2008 (and still will be for Division I-AA).

Eight of the 11 Division I-A presidents on the Board supported the proposal. Two voted against the measure and one abstained. All three Division I-AA members present voted against the proposal.

The Board's action culminated a relatively easy trek for the 12-game proposal through the Division I legislative cycle. Submitted by the Big 12 and Big East Conferences in July, the proposal earned support from the Division I Football Issues Committee and the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet before passing through the Division I Management Council two weeks ago. Council representatives from the Atlantic Coast Conference were the only ones to vote against the measure at that meeting. ACC and Conference USA representatives opposed it at the Board level.

Though the proposal garnered little discussion at the cabinet and Council levels, it was well-vetted by the Board. While the debate was intense at times, it was never heated -- even some presidents who ended up voting for the proposal agreed with some of the opponents' concerns. In the end, though, the persuasive elements were: (1) the additional game doesn't elongate the season; (2) there is no evidence that the extra contest would compromise student-athlete academic performance; and (3) student-athletes supported the measure.

"There were both persuasive arguments for and against this proposal," said Board Chair Robert Hemenway, chancellor at the University of Kansas. "It was clear that our diverse Division I membership weighed all the factors differently. In the end, though, the 12th game doesn't lengthen the season, nor does it put athletes at risk physically or academically. When I calculate all that, it may not be a perfect world, but a 12th game does lead to many positive benefits."

Other concerns presidents considered were (responses in parentheses):

• Student-athlete health and safety (data from previous 12-game seasons do not indicate that the rate of injury increases);

• Using the 12th game merely to schedule weaker opponents and thus pad teams' winning percentages (doing so would compromise the schedule-strength component for Bowl Championship Series consideration);

• Infringing even more on student-athlete time demands (student-athletes have said they would rather play during a bye week than practice); and

• The decision is based too much on revenue gain (the money would help fund increased participation opportunities in women's and Olympic sports).

Board members also discussed how their decision would be received by various constituents, including the media and general public. Reaction to the Council's passage of the proposal earlier this month garnered criticism from some who thought the measure sends mixed messages in light of the academic-reform structure currently being implemented in Division I. The American Football Coaches Association also has voiced concerns about the additional game, and more recently, the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics and the faculty-based Coalition for Intercollegiate Athletics both urged the Board to defeat it.

While the presidents took all of that into account, they did not see sufficient evidence to defeat the proposal. One Board member said, "I don't see any evidence linking the extra game to a negative impact on student-athlete well-being." Another president -- a Division I-AA CEO who was auditing the meeting -- pointed out that many Division I-AA schools play 12 or more games every season due to the championship structure in that subdivision, and that no ill effects were seen because of it.

NCAA President Myles Brand also challenged the notion that revenue tipped the scales.

"While the financial element was one of many factors considered, no single factor drove this decision," he said. "It is true that many presidents feel strongly that additional revenue is necessary to continue to conduct their high-quality programs, but the Board considered a number of other factors, including the fact that nothing points to a negative academic impact, and the fact that student-athletes supported the game. I personally don't think this will affect academic performance or the reform initiatives already underway."

One Board member noted that the issue reflected the growing complexities of Division I legislation that require presidents to weigh the integrity of the collegiate model against the funds necessary to support it. He said simply, "Our enterprise is one in which we balance integrity and fiscal needs as best we can."

The Board also discussed, but did not reach a decision on, how the 12-game season affects bowl eligibility. Board members did indicate their support for preserving the current legislation that defines bowl eligibility as a team with a winning record, though they want the Management Council and NCAA staff to study the feasibility of that under the 12-game scenario. During the 12-game seasons in 2002 and 2003, temporary legislation was passed to allow teams with a 6-6 record to be bowl-eligible, but that legislation has expired.

As for why Division I-AA did not adopt the proposal, most of the Board's I-AA members were satisfied with the playing opportunities afforded their schools through the subdivision's postseason tournament structure.