After a series of Conventions that have shaped the future of Division III philosophically, delegates appear ready this year to cast votes that will shape the division physically.

Specifically, they will choose from proposals to either manage the division’s size by imposing higher hurdles for achieving and maintaining membership, or to place a hard cap on the number of institutions that can belong to Division III. In fact, they could choose both solutions — though the Division III Presidents Council is opposing the cap.

Delegates will consider a total of 14 proposals during the January 8 business session in the Gaylord Palms Resort & Convention Center’s Osceola Ballroom — only half the number that appeared on last year’s Future of Division III-Phase II agenda, but in many ways equally weighty. In addition to the competing proposals addressing membership growth, delegates will consider legislation to limit the use of male practice players in women’s team sports; increase the number of schools required to sponsor proposals for the Convention; and place limits on athletics activity during the one date of competition that schools can schedule during a sport’s nontraditional season.

The ongoing debate over redshirting also has resurfaced this year in a pair of proposals sponsored by Division III conferences.

The proposals to deal with Division III’s growth — which has seen active membership increase 79 percent from the 233 schools that were present for the division’s creation in 1973 to 418 this year — seek to resolve a lengthy debate about the best way to stop or at least dramatically reduce that rate of expansion. Assuming all current Division III provisional and reclassifying members eventually achieve active membership and no current members leave, the division soon will grow to 451 members.

The Presidents Council is opposing a proposal initially put forth at last year’s Convention by the North Coast Athletic Conference to cap the size of the division at 459 members, seeking instead to implement its own approach that would further limit acceptance of new members to an average of only four new applicants annually, while also holding both prospective and current members more accountable for compliance with membership standards.

The presidents believe that 2007 Convention Proposal Nos. 9 (which also hikes the provisional or reclassifying membership fee to $20,000 and requires full compliance with all of the division’s regulations during the first year of the provisional or reclassifying period) and 10 (which would step up monitoring of current members’ compliance with requirements in areas ranging from sports sponsorship to attendance at Conventions and regional rules seminars) offer a more flexible solution to halting growth than a hard numerical cap.

The Council also recently extended a membership moratorium, indicating it might remain effective until 2009. The moratorium, pared with the adoption of Proposals 9 and 10, is expected to give an Association-wide working group formed by the NCAA Executive Committee time to consider even longer-term solutions to growth, including creation of a new division or subdivision of Division III.

The NCAC, however, advocates the cap as a permanent solution to the problem, saying it will protect current levels of access to championships, reduce pressures to increase NCAA staff support for the division, and preserve Division III’s constitutionally limited share of Association revenues. NCAC representatives also have suggested that the membership should consider approving the Council’s proposals and the membership cap together, to address the quality of membership as well as the division’s size.

The membership proposals aren’t the only highlights of this year’s Convention agenda.

A recent national debate over the appropriateness of pairing women’s teams against male practice players — and whether doing so deprives some women of competitive opportunities — has resulted in some media attention for Proposal No. 6, because it is the first attempt by any NCAA division to deal legislatively with the issue.

The proposal, initiated by the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee and sponsored by the Presidents Council, seeks to limit rather than eliminate use of male practice players, specifying they could be used only during the traditional season and could participate in only one practice per week. The proposal also would limit the number of male practice players in team sports to no more than half of the number required to field a starting women’s team (for example, only two male practice players would be permitted in a sport with five starting players).

SAAC representatives said they want to achieve a balance between using males to ensure quality practices and preserving participation opportunities for women.

The Massachusetts State College Athletic Conference is seeking to amend the proposal to permit males to participate in up to three practices per week, and to raise the limit on the number of males permitted to practice in team sports to match the number of starters on a team. The proposed amendment is supported by the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association.

The Presidents Council will consider whether to support, oppose or take no position on the MASCAC amendment during its January 6 pre-Convention meeting.

Delegates also will again tackle proposals arising from Division III’s adoption of legislation in 2004 that essentially eliminated redshirting.

Proposal No. 7, sponsored by the Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, renews an effort that was narrowly defeated last year to count the redshirt year of a student-athlete transferring from another division or association as a season of participation in Division III.

In a change from last year, the Presidents Council decided to oppose rather than support the effort, after it was convinced that it is inappropriate to hold a student-athlete accountable for the Division III rule while attending a non-Division III institution. The MIAC argues that student-athletes should transfer to Division III only for academic or institutional reasons, and that adoption of the proposal further affirms the division’s support for a four-year educational experience.

Another proposal (No. 8) addresses another result of the redshirting legislation — a provision under which spring-sport student-athletes generally have more opportunity than fall-sport student-athletes to practice during the nontraditional season without losing a season of participation. Its sponsors — the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, Great Northeast Athletic Conference and Northwest Conference — note that fall-sport student-athletes’ opportunity to practice without losing a season ends for the academic year with the first contest of the fall season, while spring-sport student-athletes generally can practice through a fall nontraditional season and again during the traditional season until the first spring contest.

The Presidents Council acknowledged the problem by directing relevant committees to better define any inequities and propose alternative solutions, but decided to oppose the conferences’ proposal, saying it would dilute the legislation adopted three years ago.