Odds are the 2007 Division II business session won’t be completed as quickly as last year’s when delegates breezed through 39 proposals in just under two hours. To be fair, though, the 2006 agenda didn’t have the intrigue the 2007 version does.

From a proposal to establish two postseason football championships to a measure that suspends current recruiting and benefits legislation in the spirit of community engagement, the Division II legislative agenda figures to make delegates work overtime at the January 8 session in Orlando.

Division II will deliberate 16 fewer proposals than in 2006, but several are complicated and controversial. The most well-known are the football and community-engagement proposals, both of which are out-of-the-box ideas that have earned support from the Presidents Council in the name of unifying and bringing some stability to the division, even though the debates they have generated have at times been divisive.

The football proposal, which would establish two brackets — one for institutions devoting up to the maximum of 36 equivalencies and another for schools allocating 50 percent of the maximum or fewer — is the result of proposed legislation two years ago to reduce the maximum equivalencies in football from 36 to 24. That failed, in part because delegates were assured that the Presidents Council would explore more options. The new proposal comes from the Football Task Force with Presidents Council backing. Both groups believe the two-bracket path gives smaller programs a competitive chance at a championship and keeps fully funded programs from having to reduce their commitment.

An important companion to the football proposal is another Council-backed measure that would require a two-thirds-majority vote to modify equivalency limits in any sport. At the very least, the Council wants to come out of this Convention with a membership commitment to equivalency limits rather than having to wrangle with them so frequently. Presidents believe that proposal, perhaps even more than the football measure, will help stabilize the division.

The community-engagement piece is one presidents consider critical to the strategic-positioning platform that identifies community involvement as a key Division II characteristic. While the proposal has stirred competitive-equity concerns since it suspends certain core rules during community-engagement activities, presidents believe the skepticism comes from misunderstanding and mistrust more than resistance.

"The Presidents Council has known all along that the community-engagement piece requires somewhat of a leap of faith for those members who look at legislation through competitive-equity lenses," said President Council Chair Charles Ambrose. "But I can think of no better proposal that fits the attributes we have identified as a division. Community engagement is at the core of Division II behavior, and it does not make sense to have rules in place that impede that involvement."

The football and community-engagement proposals aren’t the only complex measures on the Convention floor. Division II delegates also will consider a uniform membership process for provisional and reclassifying institutions that includes at minimum a two-year exploratory period and a one-year provisional period based on how prepared the institution is to meet Division II active-membership requirements.

The Presidents Council views the proposal as critical to managing and strategically thinking about both divisional growth and institutional expectations.

Delegates also will review an old legislative friend of sorts — individual skill instruction. The membership defeated a proposal last year that would have removed limits on the number of student-athletes who could be involved in individual or team skill instruction in sports other than football. But the debate surrounding the proposal made it clear to the Management and Presidents Councils that the issue wasn’t over, so both agreed to revisit the issue this year.

Indeed, the Sunshine State Conference and the Mid-American Intercollegiate Athletics Association submitted virtually the same proposal for 2007, tacking it onto a stipulation that no countable athletically related activities could be conducted during a two-week period around final exams.

The Management and Presidents Councils want the membership to wait on the 2007 proposal until a more thorough vetting of the issue has occurred. Among solutions being considered are:

Limiting the number of student-athletes participating in skill instruction at one time to 80 percent of the number of starters (for example, five for volleyball, four for basketball). That would provide consistency to team sports with a larger squad size and mirror the current number of four permitted in basketball.

Permitting simultaneous sessions with a limit of four student-athletes and one instructor apiece. The multiple-session approach reduces the strain on facilities and on student-athlete time demands.

Permitting one hour of skill instruction and one hour of full practice during the off-season. Advocates see that approach as a balance between those concerned that all eight hours could be devoted to full practice sessions if the limits were to be removed, and those who think current restrictions compromise the intent of skill instruction.

If the 2007 proposal is defeated, both Councils have pledged to submit a skill-instruction package for the 2008 Convention.

Another proposal that has generated some resistance — more because of process than intent — is one from the California Collegiate Athletic Association and the Great Northwest Athletic Conference that does not count a season of competition against a four-year college transfer who participated on the previous four-year institution’s club team. The Management and Presidents Councils and the Faculty Athletics Representatives Association oppose the legislation based on the belief that it does not treat all student-athlete constituencies the same.

FARA members also are opposed to a proposal supported by the Management and Presidents Councils that allows a student-athlete to try out with a professional team at any time outside the student-athlete’s playing and practice season, provided the tryout does not last more than 48 hours.

Faculty reps are concerned that the legislation does not include a missed-class-time provision and that the 48-hour window would likely be longer because of travel and thus have academic repercussions. The Division II Legislation Committee, from which the proposal originated, has stated it would be amenable to amending the proposal with the missed-class-time provision.