In addition to its discussion on the length of the baseball season, the Division I Board of Directors also adopted a proposal affecting the number of basketball games at its April 27 meeting.

The presidents adopted a format that sets the second Friday in November as the official start of the season and allows teams to participate in a multiple-team event annually rather than twice in a four-year period (thus eliminating the “two-in-four rule”).

The new legislation, effective August 1, provides for teams that participate in those events (which may include up to four games) to play 27 other regular-season contests. Schools that do not choose to participate or are not selected to participate in those events may play a maximum of 29 regular-season games.

Participation in a conference postseason tournament also is exempted under the new legislation.

Though the NCAA will no longer certify multiple-team events, “qualifying” events must meet the following criteria to be considered exempt:

• The event must be sponsored by the NCAA, an active or affiliated member or conference and must take place in the United States or one of its territories.
• The event may include no more than four contests per institution and must end no later than 14 days after the first contest of the event.
• Participation shall be limited by conference to one team per league annually and by institution to not more than once in the same event in any four-year period.
• The event may include only teams that are using it as an exempt event.

The potential for a 31-game season (27 regular-season contests plus a four-game exempted event) mirrors the current season maximum, but the new format will add games over time since all institutions will have the chance to compete in a qualifying multiple-team event annually.

The provision for a 29-game regular season for teams that do not play in those events represents a two-game expansion of the current structure.

While season length was somewhat of a concern, presidents realized the need for a format that addressed competitive equity without arbitrarily restricting market forces. The only real debate in fact was over whether to provide 28 or 29 games to teams that do not play in a qualifying multiple-team event. Supporters of the 29-game model thought it closed the competitive-equity gap with teams that compile 31 games through participation in a multiple-team event — and it provided the 29-game teams another opportunity to benefit from an additional home contest.

Those who favored the 28-game approach, including members of the Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Group, believed it would preserve the integrity of the multiple-team events and thus give the so-called mid-major leagues the best chance to play marquee teams on a neutral floor. They argued that a 29-game format reduces the incentive for the marquee teams to play in the multiple-team events.

Others, though, said the 28-game model might have an inverse effect of leading to a proliferation of multiple-team events, based on the notion that more teams would rather play 31 games than 28 for competitive-equity purposes. The resulting glut of events could dilute the quality of the fields.

In the end, the presidents decided 29 still retained enough of an incentive to participate in events but also provided the flexibility to not have to participate every year.

The passage of the proposal comes conveniently at the end of a four-year cycle under the old two-in-four rule, which means that as of August 1, the slate will be wiped clean with respect to exempted contests. In other words, all teams will be free to begin to apply the new legislation without regard to participation in events in previous years.

The new legislation also means that participation in a foreign tour, which must take place during a vacation period and not within 30 days of the beginning of basketball practice, will not affect a team’s ability to participate in a qualifying multiple-team event in the same year.