While NCAA member institutions are busy celebrating the 25th anniversary of women's championships this year, Division I programs are debating whether to increase scholarships for women in four sports, a decision that could have a significant impact on the next generation of female student-athletes.

In April, the division's Board of Directors adopted a legislative proposal that would increase scholarships in gymnastics from 12 to 14, in volleyball from 12 to 13, in cross country/track and field from 18 to 20 and in soccer from 12 to 14.

The proposal met more resistance than originally anticipated, though, and for the first time since Division I went to a representative governance structure in 1997, the member institutions have used their veto power, collecting 116 votes to override the Board's action.

Thirty override votes requires the Board to revisit the proposal, but 100 actually suspends the legislation. That, too, was a first for Division I.

The Board looked at the proposal again at its August meeting and decided it would be in the best interests of the division to settle the issue at the Convention in a one-institution, one-vote capacity.

In the ensuing three months since the Board put the onus back on the membership, there has been no shortage of discussion and debate.

Stockpiling concern

All 116 votes for the override came from I-AA and I-AAA institutions. Many of the concerns from the smaller schools revolve around their belief that the proposal will not necessarily increase opportunities for female student-athletes, but will instead help the Division I powers stockpile more talent.

"The big programs will draw the next level of athlete up to their programs," said Doug Fullerton, commissioner of the Big Sky Conference. "I really believe that to increase grants-in-aid without paying attention to what that will do to the particular nature of those sports can do some real damage."

Fullerton believes that an increase in scholarships will effectively cause the rich to get richer, encouraging prospective student-athletes to sit on the bench at top programs as opposed to accepting more playing time at less prominent programs where they can make an immediate impact.

What Fullerton sees as a negative effect on parity in women's sports could develop into a serious problem if the proposal is adopted in January.

"The sad thing is that the experience of sitting on the bench is much less of an athletic experience," Fullerton said. "A lot of kids could develop into great players if they choose to go somewhere where they can play all the time. There are some who already choose to sit on a bench at a higher-profile program rather than accept a scholarship at a lower-level school. It's crazy."

In volleyball, for example, six players can take the court at any given time. If the proposal passes and there is an increase to 13 scholarships, fully funded programs would have a minimum of seven full grants-in-aid on the bench at all times.

Fullerton says that at first glance, the proposal tends to convey an intention to increase opportunities in a burgeoning era of women's sports. But he cautions that while more scholarships can be doled out, playing opportunities may actually decrease for student-athletes who are convinced they will earn playing time at the nation's elite programs.

Many administrators who do not support the override, though, believe the fear of stockpiling is misguided.

"Young people want to pursue their dreams. They want an academic opportunity that leads them to a better lifestyle after graduation. They have passion for their sport and want playing time," said Chris Plonsky, women's athletics director at the University of Texas at Austin. "I'm not a believer in the concept of stockpiling. I believe young people go where the opportunities are for them to fulfill their dreams. If you grow up competing, you want to compete."

Plonsky warns institutions supporting the override that to deny this opportunity would be a step backward at a time when athletics administrators should be celebrating the growth of women's athletics over the past 25 years. She also doesn't see the merit in Fullerton's suggestion that playing opportunities could actually be decreased. She said student-athletes who are struggling for playing time can always transfer to a school where they could see more action.

"When people make the decision about where to pursue their collegiate dreams, it isn't like they're stuck there forever. Our transfer rules are liberal and as long as you transfer in good academic standing, you can have other choices," Plonsky said. "We've accommodated students who change their minds. That's part of the procedure."

Funding vs. opportunity

The smaller institutions that oppose the proposal have been accused of taking their stance based on financial ramifications. Fullerton says that nothing could be further from the truth. He said in fact that the institutions in his conference are prepared to spend more money than they would have to by adding softball as a championship sport.

"It's been portrayed as the smaller guys not wanting to spend the money, and that's just not the case," Fullerton  said. "It's not an issue of spending or not spending money. It's an issue of the health of women's sports."

Fullerton suggests that if the larger programs are so intent on increasing opportunities for female student-athletes, they should consider adding another sport. That is the most efficient way to ensure an actual increase in playing opportunities, he said.

"If you need more scholarship women in your program, then you need to add another sport. It's just that simple," Fullerton said. "We're not a very wealthy conference, but the presidents are interested in seeing us develop another women's championship within the conference. I think that's an extremely healthy outlook on the way we should get this done."

Lynda Tealer, senior woman administrator at the University of Florida, disagrees with Fullerton's position. She contends that adding sports doesn't erase the need of those programs that have outgrown their current support structure.

"I do think it goes beyond money, but what I don't like is that we're setting this up as a discussion between one or the other, because it really is not," Tealer said. "If you're intending to add sports, you're still going to need to do that when this is all over. I absolutely prefer that sports are added, but I also understand that in women's soccer, we have a number of scholarships that don't correlate with the number of participants, and I don't think proposing to add sports really addresses that issue."

Plonsky asserts that adding sports has been done before. Her institution has added soccer, softball and rowing since 1993.

"One of the reasons we're so strident in our support of this piece of legislation is because we've been one of the programs that has added sports. We're able to attract walk-ons in all of our sports to make the number that's required to comply with Title IX, but it's enormously difficult," Plonsky said. "I view the increased scholarship opportunities as essential in those existing sports."

Texas went from 88 female student-athletes to 270 as it increased the number of sports it offered in the 1990s, but as sports such as women's soccer have exploded in popularity, it seems to many that increasing scholarships is a logical move.

"There are a burgeoning number of student-athletes out there just wanting an opportunity to compete. Wherever it is, the entrée to the opportunity is what's being glossed over in the financial conversations," Plonsky said. "Just because a Texas might get three or four more soccer players who may have been considering other places, it's the scholarship opportunity that's critical. Wherever the opportunity exists, they're going to fill the field."

Proposal to be split

Management Council Vice Chair Kate Hickey, associate athletics director at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, isn't sure that increased grants-in-aid will have a direct correlation to increased participation.

"Not every institution has an unlimited budget. Some people look at Division I-A schools and automatically think they have lots of money. That's not always the case," Hickey said. "Not every Division I-A school thinks that increased scholarship limits will result in increased participation."

The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee has begun initial conversations about the issue and will take a formal stance at its November meeting. Committee Chair Ian Gray expects the committee to have some intense discussions given its diverse constituency.

"My initial reaction is that this is a great opportunity because we'd be enhancing student-athlete well-being by creating more scholarships," Gray said. "But then we asked what it really meant. Does it mean that student-athletes who would originally have signed with mid-major institutions now sign with a major conference school? Is this creating opportunities for success or for struggle? We're not quite ready to take a stance yet. We'll take a full opinion in our November meeting and we'll certainly speak on the Convention floor."

The Division I governance staff has decided to split the proposal into four separate pieces to give each component a fairer shot. For instance, there is strong sentiment from I-A, I-AA and I-AAA institutions that soccer has reached a point where it needs extra support to continue to flourish. Additionally, track and field may garner support because of the opportunities it provides to minority student-athletes.

"Dividing the proposal is probably the best way to go at this point. If it's one sport that kills the whole thing, it's better to split it up," said Carol Iwaoka, an associate commissioner at the Big Ten Conference.

For example, Iwaoka believes that women's gymnastics, because it has limited sponsorship at the Division I level, could benefit from the proposal being split. Many athletics programs that don't sponsor gymnastics may abstain from voting on that particular component, allowing the initiative to pass based on the support from those institutions that sponsor the sport.

Regardless, the January Convention will be historic in more ways than one. It will serve as the kickoff for the NCAA Centennial celebration and will provide an opportunity to look at the growth of intercollegiate athletics over the past 100 years. But during the celebration, Division I institutions will be prompted to think of where they've been, where they are now and where they want to be.

Twenty-five years ago, institutions were just beginning to develop broad-based women's athletics programs. Decisions made in January will affect what happens over the next 25 years for women participating in intercollegiate athletics.