DENVER – The Division II Management Council has moved a package of season-shortening and contest-cutting measures in eight sports for the Presidents Council to sponsor as 2010 Convention legislation.

After a two-hour, gut-check discussion as to whether this “Life in the Balance” package aptly balances a charge from presidents to align Division II policy with practice and a plea from student-athletes to protect competition, Council members voted unanimously to support proposals that:

• Reduce contests in men’s and women’s soccer (from 20 to 18), field hockey (from 20 to 18), women’s volleyball (from 28 to 26), baseball (from 56 to 50), men’s and women’s golf (from 24 dates to 21) and softball (by eliminating the tournament exception).
• Reduce the length of seasons in soccer, volleyball, field hockey and cross country by allowing student-athletes to report 17 days before the first permissible contest (which cannot be before the Thursday preceding September 6) or five days before the start of classes, whichever is earlier. Those dates are about a week later than current legislation.
• Football student-athletes could begin their preseason practice activities either 21 days before the first permissible contest date in Division II (which also couldn’t be before the Thursday preceding September 6) or seven days before the start of classes at the institution, whichever is earlier. The Division II Championships Committee approved a policy change (contingent on the adoption of the proposals) to move the football championship back one week to accommodate the later reporting dates.

The Council also sent the presidents a proposal that calls for a pause from countable athletically related activities during the winter holiday break – and in the process came close to endorsing contest reductions in basketball.

The so-called “dead period” changed slightly from the original concept that came from the Division II Legislation and Championships Committees. The new version not only would prevent winter-sport student-athletes from participating in practices or games from December 20 through December 26 but also preclude student-athletes in all sports from participating in voluntary workouts on campus during the same period unless those activities are conducted in facilities open to the general student body.

Some Council members worried about the potential pressure the dead period would put on scheduling contests, particularly in basketball. Concerns included the dead period being extended by existing conference-based policies regarding competition during exam periods and a reluctance to schedule road games on the 19th because the dead period would preclude athletically related travel on the 20th.

In addition to wrestling with those details (including a failed attempt to allow institutions to choose their own seven-day dead periods in an 11-day window), the discussion fueled an already existing perception that basketball was being treated differently in the Life in the Balance initiative. Council members noted that several fall and spring sports were losing either a week and a reciprocal number of games (or both), while basketball was fitting its existing number of contests into a shorter season (because of the dead period) – an outcome that the Presidents Council had generally discouraged.

That led to a couple of basketball-specific proposals, one to reduce the number of regular-season games from 27 to 26. That failed in a 13-11 vote where a two-thirds majority was required.  A second alternative also failed. It would have kept the maximum number of regular-season games at 27 and the number of discretionary exemptions at three but would have introduced a third cap of 28 on the total number of countable and discretionary exemptions (not including annual exemptions such as conference tournaments). Teams could reach the 28 total by any of the following:

• Playing 25 regular-season games and three exempted contests;
• Playing 26 regular-season games and two exemptions; or
• Playing 27 regular-season games and one exemption.

While the concept intrigued the Council, some members thought the choices would confuse scheduling efforts and create potential inequities between men’s and women’s programs. The vote on that option also failed by a 13-11 count.

In the end, the Council left open the idea of considering basketball-related proposals in the future, especially since a broader review of Life in the Balance (including a review of non-championship segments and exempted contests) figures to extend beyond the 2010 Convention. But members were reluctant to deal with basketball now without further input from stakeholders.

Some members also thought adding basketball in the mix for 2010 would overload an already aggressive near-term agenda. Nonetheless, Council Chair Tim Selgo said he would inform the Presidents Council that Management Council members fully intended to extend their Life in the Balance review to all sports.

The discussion culminated a rigorous afternoon in which the Management Council “balanced” concerns emanating from one of the division’s most ambitious legislative efforts in recent years.

“At the heart of our discussion was balancing a sense of urgency from our presidents to ensure that our student-athletes are carrying out the athletics side of the college experience in accordance with our platform,” said Selgo, athletics director at Grand Valley State. “On the other hand, our Council heard loud and clear from our summit discussions that while student-athletes understand our need to act, they don’t want us to act hastily.”

Management Council members were thorough in the way they reached a comfort level with the package, with several members noting the passion with which student-athletes spoke about their contests.

Eckerd Athletics Director Bob Fortosis was persuasive when he said, “Our whole motive is not to take things away from student-athletes but to give something back.”

Fortosis noted that the proposals do address the balance presidents are after and protect student-athletes from “season creep.”

“Whenever you have varying opinions on a difficult issue like this, the wisest place to go for the final decision is the group that best sees the big picture,” Fortosis told the Management Council. “In this case, that is our Presidents Council first, then the Management Council. It was right for the division to start talking about this initiative and I believe we have approached our decision-making the right way.”