Prompted to attend in part because of the override vote succeeding the session, a standing-room-only crowd of more than 600 Division I athletics administrators and educators learned about and debated several legislative proposals during the January 7 Legislative Review Forum.

As in past years, the Management Council’s legislative review subcommittee used the session both to educate attendees about the more complex proposals — and to stir discussion.

Among measures receiving the bulk of review were those pertaining to the baseball playing and practice season, particularly whether the number of games should be reduced.

Championships/Competition Cabinet Chair Chris Dawson from the Pacific-10 Conference said her group supported reducing the regular season from 56 to 52 games, a measure also encouraged by the Board of Directors. Dawson said the cabinet believes the reduction is necessary given that the proposal compacts the season into 13 weeks, which with 56 games would mean teams would play four games a week, on average.

But Baseball Committee Chair Larry Templeton from Mississippi State University countered that the 56-game season remains manageable, and that a reduction only would damage the mid-major teams. Templeton said if the reduction passes, larger schools likely would drop the midweek games against the smaller, nearby schools.

Jack Evans, faculty athletics representative at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and a member of the Committee on Academic Performance, said he had heard at least anecdotally that a reduction in games would address low academic performance in the sport. But Evans said that the transfer issue in baseball and the sport’s unique professional draft circumstances are the real issues there. The Board of Directors remains unconvinced of that, however, as the presidents continue to support a cutback in games.

A series of proposals regarding skill instruction also energized the room. Points considered included how many of the eight hours allowed per week during the off-season can be devoted to skill instruction, how many student-athletes can participate in the sessions and whether athletically related activities should cease during the week leading up to exams.

Women’s Basketball Coaches Association Executive Director and CEO Beth Bass urged that four (up from two) of the eight hours be allotted to skill instruction in women’s basketball. Student-Athlete Advisory Committee members Chas Davis from Creighton University and Corey Steven from the University of Illinois at Chicago spoke in favor of the four-hour allowance for all sports, including football, and they also supported the restriction on athletically related activities one week before exams. In addition, SAAC members supported provisions that allow an unlimited number of student-athletes to participate in the skill-instruction sessions. They said it builds teamwork and is a more efficient use of student-athletes’ time.

The Management Council ended up sending two proposals — Nos. 131-B and C — for membership comment, the former with support and the latter without. Both affect all sports other than football; No. 131-B keeps the hour limit at two for women’s basketball.

SAAC members also vocalized their support for Proposal No. 03-24 (as amended by Proposal No. 03-24-1) that would require institutions to award aid in one-year increments rather than term by term. Ben Hanson from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, cited three benefits: It increases financial security for student-athletes; it demonstrates an increased commitment from the institution, a loyalty effort Hanson said would be reciprocated by student-athletes; and it reduces the various pressures student-athletes feel during their educational experience. “The increased financial security and positive effects on student-athlete well-being outweigh any concerns,” Hanson said.

The SAAC also strongly opposed a medical-expense proposal (No. 05-101) that student-athletes see as backpedaling from current rules. SAAC members Spencer Tatum from Ohio University said, “It takes away from what we fought for. It’s a step back.”

Pacific-10 Conference Commissioner Tom Hansen backed the SAAC position, saying, “The current rule has been in effect only this year. Let’s give it a chance to work.”

That “give it a chance” attitude carried to other measures as well. Some people in the governance structure say the reason Division I considers so many legislative proposals from year to year is that members propose changes before even knowing whether what was recently adopted will be effective.

The WBCA’s Bass pointed that out with the recruiting and access packages from the men’s and women’s coaches associations that Division I adopted last year. She noted — and opposed — two proposed changes in the recruiting calendar (Proposal Nos. 05-145 and 163). “The number of recruiting days was a bedrock proposal in our package,” she said. “It is too early to alter this already. We’ll survey Division I coaches about this after the season. If change is needed, we’ll propose it through the basketball issues committee. Approving this now would dismantle the progress we’ve made.”

The Management Council defeated both proposals at its January 8 meeting.

Among the last proposals during the forum to generate comments from the floor were Nos. 05-161 and 164, both concerning allowable athletically related activities for prospects in summer school. While the technical details of the proposals spurred discussion, it was their overall principle that irked one delegate. University of Cincinnati Faculty Athletics Representative Nancy Hamant, a former member of the Management Council, said she was bothered by the apparent shift in focus from academic preparation in the summer to athletics participation.

“When (providing prospects aid for the summer period) was passed originally we said it would just be a matter of time before we’re talking about these students’ athletics activities instead of academic activities,” Hamant told the crowd. “We’re well down that road. Students have no business other than coming in for academic orientation. To think that we’re now talking about them working in camps is disappointing.

“It’s interesting that this is what we’ve come to.”

The Management Council sent both proposals into the comment period.