As is traditional at the Division II Management Council’s fall meeting, members used part of their session to look ahead.

This time the topic was skill instruction, a matter that is past, present and future with the Council — past because the membership defeated a Presidents Council-sponsored proposal last year that would have lifted limits on the number of student-athletes involved in skill instruction in sports other than football; present because of a membership-sponsored measure this year proposing the same idea; and future because it will be up to the Management and Presidents Councils to propose a solution if the current concept fails again in January.

Management Council members used their round-table discussions to focus on feedback obtained from the Championships Committee (including sports committees), the Legislation Committee and the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. Most hold skill instruction in high esteem, but some fear that lifting restrictions on the number of participants is merely soft cover for the sessions becoming full-blown practices.

Ironically, the Management Council was just as unable to reach a consensus on the matter as the membership has been, since all three groups reporting out drew different conclusions.

Some members believe that that the concern for full-blown practices should be acknowledged by incorporating them into the off-season schedule. Of the allowable hours, for example, allocate one for skill instruction and another for a full team practice.

Others favored a more efficient approach by advocating simultaneous sessions with a limit of four student-athletes and one instructor apiece. The multiple-session approach also reduces the strain on facilities.

Still others preferred a model that limits the number of student-athlete participants to 80 percent of the number of starters (for example, five for volleyball, four for basketball).

Some Council members even proposed rethinking out-of-season skill instruction altogether with a model that puts the onus on institutions to determine how they use it. For example, maintain the eight-hour requirement during the off-season but do not stipulate how the eight hours may be used.

"There appears to be a general sense that the eight-hour parameter during the off-season fits within the student-athletes’ academic schedules and still allows them to participate in other campus activities," said Division II Vice President Mike Racy. "But members aren’t as clear about how those eight hours should be constructed. Some people are starting to think we should give schools the flexibility to decide."

For now, the Council will wait on the outcome of the proposal for the 2007 Convention from the Sunshine State Conference and the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association that calls for eliminating skill-instruction limitations, particularly the number of student-athletes permitted.

If that is defeated, though, the membership likely will look to the Division II governance structure for an answer by 2008. Skill instruction already has been placed on the agenda for the joint meeting of Management and Presidents Council members in January.

"It’s clear that we value skill instruction," said Management Council Chair Jill Willson. "We just need to figure out how to structure it so that it serves student-athletes’ best interests."