Perhaps proponents of adding opportunities for women may find a silver lining in Division I’s historic override vote January 7 that turned down increased scholarships in four sports.

While the nine-month debate on whether to increase grant maximums in women’s gymnastics, soccer, volleyball, and track and field ended in three of the sports being denied the growth opportunity for now, the intense discussion may prompt a broader review of how best to achieve the proposal’s intended outcome.

To be sure, members agreed — just barely — that adding scholarships in selected sports isn’t an approach that satisfies everyone. The override vote at the first Division I business session since restructuring took care of that, overturning a previous decision by the Board of Directors to add a scholarship in volleyball and two each in gymnastics and track and field. All three votes narrowly eclipsed the required five-eighths majority  — by just one vote for gymnastics in fact.

Women’s soccer was the lone sport in the proposal to survive the cut, as the effort to override a two-scholarship increase in that sport failed by a 191-125 count, a handful short of the 62.5 percent needed.

Soccer in fact was the only sport to generate comments from the floor of the crowded Indianapolis Convention Center ballroom. Members speaking in support of increasing limits in soccer from 12 to 14 pointed out that, unlike in other team sports, the number of players on the field in soccer (11) almost matches the current number of grants (12). Others noted the injury rates in the sport are among the highest in all women’s sports, thus supporting the need for increased numbers.

Whether those claims tipped the scales is unclear, but they were at least different from earlier arguments that relied on competitive-equity and fiscal concerns as reasons to maintain the status quo.

But the possible need for broader discussion in the women’s sports opportunity arena emanated from general debate that preceded the override vote on the individual sports.

Butler University Athletics Director John Parry opened the discussion with a bit of levity, saying, “It’s nice to be here, isn’t it? One institution/one vote!” But he proceeded quickly to the crux of the matter, saying that the real issue is not about pitting subdivisions against each other, nor is it only about costs, or even an argument about Title IX as some have proposed. Rather, Parry said, it is about how best to increase opportunities.

He for one thought Proposal No. 04-21 wasn’t the way to do it.

“There’s more concern with this proposal about its effect on competitive equity,” Parry told his peers. “The answer to those who are struggling to increase their numbers in women’s sports is to add a sport, not just increase grants in selected sports.”

Patriot League Executive Director Carolyn Schlie Femovich agreed, saying, “A vote for the override should not be viewed as a vote against gender equity. Adding grants is not the best or most meaningful way to enhance competitive opportunities for women.”

Dru Hancock of the Big 12 Conference, though, spoke against the override, saying that current maximums were set long ago and that the landscape has changed since. “The reality is that many Division I schools can and want to do better,” she said, “but they’re not going to do that by adding sports.”

To that, Jeff Orleans, executive director of the Ivy Group, said the membership should engage in finding the right answer — but that this particular measure was not the proper approach. “If the real issue is to call for a review of how to increase opportunities, then let’s do it and do it right,” he said. “But this proposal benefits only a select group of sports at a select number of schools.”

That seemed to resonate with the standing-room-only crowd. Most every speaker who addressed the proposal in fact stated they supported additional opportunities — but there was little consensus on how to go about it. Most delegates agreed that the financial and competitive-equity barriers that happen to fall along subdivisional lines don’t indicate discontent among the subdivisions, either. Those factors, they said, merely are characteristics of the subdivisions that are difficult to reconcile when considering one-size-fits-all legislation.

One Management Council member in fact said that the narrow voting margins reflects the complexity of the issues, and matters this complicated — and important — tend to return to the discussion table. Others said they’d be surprised if the matter did not return — and quickly.

Indeed, if the historic override results in further review that leads to additional opportunities across the board, then the vote that some perceived to be a short-term loss January 7 could become a long-term victory.

The override came to be when 116 Divisions I-AA and I-AAA institutions called for a review after the Board of Directors adopted the measure last April. Because more than 100 schools submitted requests, the legislation was suspended until the Board’s August meeting. Presidents at that time stayed the course, stating that it was appropriate for a proposal so significant — and apparently so divisive — to be settled by procedures put in place when restructuring was approved in 1997 that gave the voting minority on any given measure the opportunity to reconsider.

The presidents emphasized that their action in August did not constitute a “line in the sand” or a breakdown in relations among Division I subdivisions. On the contrary, they cited the proposal as a victory for the processes provided for in the new structure.

Override

vote results

(62.5% required to pass)

Gymnastics

Subdivision Yes   No    Abstain      Pct.

I-A    15     94     9      13.76%

I-AA  87     12     9      87.88%

I-AAA        86     5      5      94.51%

Total 188   111   23     62.88%

Volleyball

Subdivision Yes   No    Abstain      Pct.

I-A    22     96     0      18.64%

I-AA  94     13     0      87.85%

I-AAA        88     8      0      91.67%

Total 204   117   0      63.55%

Track and field

Subdivision Yes   No    Abstain      Pct.

I-A    20     96     0      17.24%

I-AA  95     13     0      87.96%

I-AAA        87     8      0      91.58%

Total 202   117   0      63.32%

Soccer

Subdivision Yes   No    Abstain      Pct.

I-A    16     100   0      13.79%

I-AA  91     16     0      85.05%

I-AAA        85     9      1      90.43%

Total 191   125   1      60.44%