At least by past standards, the Division III membership marched through a lengthy legislative agenda January 9 in Indianapolis with breathtaking speed.

It took less than three hours for delegates to deal with a long list of proposals designated by the Division III Presidents Council for roll-call votes — and only about 30 minutes during the annual Convention business session to establish a strong sentiment for preserving recent reforms.

Delegates rejected Proposal No. 3, which sought to reinstate “redshirting,” by a 2-1 margin — a more decisive action than the original vote at the 2004 Convention to eliminate the practice.

They then endorsed three Council-sponsored proposals that resulted directly from recommendations of the Future of Division III-Phase II Oversight Group, with 99 percent of voting delegates approving Proposal No. 9, which amends the Division III philosophy statement to clearly state that athletics should be conducted within institutions’ academic and cultural mission.

The membership also approved proposals to create a Conference Self-Study Guide (CSSG) and to cap the size of championship brackets at 64 teams (32 in football).

While the day’s proposals were debated and disposed of efficiently, they also were handled deliberatively. In fact, after lunch, the membership reconsidered three decisions from earlier in the day, though it reversed course only on one.

During the morning — after endorsing the CSSG and a related one-time, two-year opportunity for conference realignment beginning in August 2008 — delegates defeated an Empire 8 proposal that sought to broaden protection for conferences threatened by realignment-related loss of automatic qualification for championships.

However, sentiment shifted through the lunch hour as supporters of the proposal successfully persuaded delegates that it provides reasonable accommodation for conferences any time — not just during the Council’s one-time opportunity — when realignment reduces league membership below the number required for AQ.

When all was said and done, Presidents Council Chair Phillip Stone of Bridgewater College (Virginia) lauded delegates for the manner in which they prepared for and conducted their business.

“You really processed this material,” said Stone, concluding his two-year term as chair. “The communication system worked pretty well in terms of the information you received, especially at the conference level. I’m so impressed by the way the conferences prepared, in terms of trying to talk to each other, taking a look at the legislation to see whether it’s good or bad. When you came here, you were ready.”

Setting the tone

Many expected the debate over “redshirting” would set the tone for the day, but several factors made it difficult to predict what that tone might be.

As it did two years ago, the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee objected to the membership’s ban of the practice on grounds that students commonly take more than four years to graduate and that athletics is being treated differently on campuses than other activities.

“Clearly, our presidents support the Division III philosophy, which says that students and student-athletes are the same,” said Marcus Pryor, a SAAC member from the College of Mount St. Joseph. “If this is true, we ask why, for example, do students with an interest in drama have the opportunity to participate in a university play for five years if they choose to do so?”

Other redshirting proponents, including Al Bean, director of athletics at the University of Southern Maine, and Jim Nelson, director of athletics at Suffolk University, took issue with suggestions that their position is “anti-reform.”

“This is a critical issue,” Bean said. “This is not about how many weeks are right or how many games are right. It’s more about our philosophy, and supporting our students.”

Said Nelson, “When we look at the reform measures, I think some folks here look at it as the Bill of Rights, the Ten Commandments, the Quran...it is not that. In some instances, the reform needs to be reformed.”

However, opponents of Proposal No. 3 —including Faculty Athletics Representatives Association officer Dennis Leighton of the University of New England, who reported FARA’s position against the proposal — urged the membership to stand by its two-year-old decision and guard against permitting athletics participation to become the primary reason why student-athletes extend their stay in school.

“The elimination of redshirting encourages degree completion in a four-year time frame and eliminates the pressure imposed on student-athletes to prolong the years they spend at our institutions,” said Val Cushman, director of athletics at Randolph-Macon Woman’s College, speaking on behalf of the Division III Management Council. “Just as most Division III educational programs are designed to last four years, so, too, should Division III athletics participation.”

Delegates responded by voting, 277-128 (with one abstention), to maintain the ban, but also proved unwilling (by a four-vote margin) to go even further and charge student-athletes who redshirt at institutions outside of Division III with a year of competition upon transferring into the division.

Stone said after the business session that the outcome of the redshirting proposal was crucial.

“If we could not hold on to that change, we probably were not really on the path of reform,” he said, adding that the vote suggests “the reform package of 2004 is pretty well sealed and locked in.”

That assertion was supported later in the business session, when sponsors of Proposal No. 18, which would have lengthened the nontraditional season, chose to withdraw the measure.

Future directions

The Presidents Council also won support for the Future of Division III-Phase II Oversight Group’s efforts to move beyond legislating restrictions and focus on establishing goals and directions for the membership.

Stone told delegates at the end of the business session that the Oversight Group and the Council had “kept the faith” during the past two years by sponsoring proposals that support Division III ideals shared by the membership.

“There have been numerous conversations at the institutional level, at the conference level...there have been surveys of the membership,” he said. “There have been many efforts to find out what the membership thinks is best for student-athletes.”

The day’s most lopsided vote endorsed the proposal that most clearly articulates that effort — the amendment of the philosophy statement.

“This proposal reflects the Division III membership’s feedback regarding the integration of student-athletes and athletics administrators into the campus community and culture,” said Douglas Hastad, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, speaking on behalf of the Management Council.

“It notes that coaches play a significant role as educators; that student-athletes’ academic performance should be, at a minimum, consistent with that of the general student body; and that admissions policies and procedures for student-athletes should be consistent with those applicable to the general student body.”

Delegates also supported measures suggested by Division III’s governance groups for dealing with issues stemming from the rapid growth and increasing diversity of the division.

One of those proposals, which originated in the Oversight Group’s work, addresses one byproduct of growth by capping championships brackets, thus effectively limiting Division III postseason competition to three weeks in length (five weeks in football).

The membership also supported a proposal originating from the Division III Membership Committee and sponsored by the Presidents Council to increase minimum sports sponsorship from 10 sports to 12 (six for men and six for women). The action will pull some members closer to the division’s sports-sponsorship norm by requiring institutions with more than 1,000 students to offer 12 sports by August 1, 2010.

Delegates made clear their preference for that approach over a North Coast Athletic Conference proposal that would have required some schools (depending upon enrollment) to sponsor at least 14 sports.

A larger question involving both the growth and diversity of the division continues to loom, however, after delegates’ decision to refer a membership cap proposed by the NCAC to an NCAA Executive Committee working group that will study membership issues during the coming year.

That group — which includes Division III presidents or chancellors John Fry of Franklin & Marshall College; Dale Knobel of Denison University; and Rick Wells of the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh — was urged by NCAC Executive Director Dennis Collins to respond within six months with a report on ways to deal with rapid growth of the division and the resulting stress on access to championships, programs and services, and NCAA staff support.

“I can’t overemphasize the importance,” Collins said. “This unhealthy condition has festered in excess of 10 years.”

Other actions

In other key actions, delegates approved:

* Proposal No. 6, which revises the minimum contest requirements for sports sponsorship to 70 percent of the division-wide average number of completed contests.

* Proposals specifying that a member institution that fails to meet the Institutional Self-Study Guide deadline or fails to submit the annual financial aid electronic report will be placed on probation, restricted status and corresponding membership on repeated failures of submission.

* Proposal No. 2, permitting institutional coaches to teach private lessons to a prospect, provided certain criteria are satisfied.

* Proposal No. 1, which revises restrictions related to the use of a student-athlete’s name or image in institutional, charitable, educational or nonprofit promotional activities.

In addition to its referral of the membership cap proposal, the membership sent two proposals to the Division III Management Council for further review:

* Proposal No. 5, which would have permitted a student-athlete who graduates early from an institution to enroll in a graduate program at another institution and use one or more remaining seasons of eligibility, provided certain criteria are satisfied. The Presidents Council decided before the Convention to withdraw the proposal, believing the Management Council’s Administrative Review Subcommittee can grant relief in what the presidents believe are only a few instances in which transfer eligibility should be permitted. However, the University Athletic Association sought and won membership support for further study.

* Proposal No. 24, which would have prohibited “subvarsity” teams from competing against high school or preparatory school teams. The New England Small College Athletic Association opposed the proposal, expressing concerns that it did not fully take into consideration the impact on institutions’ ability to maintain junior varsity programs.

Delegates also approved seven proposals in addition to those included in the presidential roll-call grouping, with none generating significant opposition.