So far, Division II’s “Life in the Balance” initiative has treated most sports only generally in considering game reductions and shorter seasons, except for baseball and softball, which entered the review with special attention directed their way. Presidents and athletics administrators alike have used both sports as examples of “season creep” when noting the needs for cuts.

Softball in particular stands out because of its “tournament exception” that allows teams to count multi-game days in tournaments as one contest date. That means some teams have played as many as 70 games by the time they reach NCAA postseason play.

In the main, softball coaches seem to accept the idea that cuts are coming, but it remains to be seen as to how those reductions will be accomplished.

Three general concepts are on the table. The strictest is to reduce the game cap from 56 to 50 and eliminate the tournament exception. Another is to stay at 56 and eliminate the tournament exception, while a third – which the Division II Legislation Committee is suggesting – would cut games to 50 but allow five tournament exceptions (down from the current 10).

The goal – as with all the concepts under the Life in the Balance effort – is to find more balance between class time and game time for student-athletes, an idea that anchors the division’s strategic-positioning platform.

“The reductions are something the softball community has talked about for a while, and it wouldn’t come at a surprise to the Division II coaches if some version of this were to be implemented,” said Janet Montgomery, head coach at West Alabama. “But not everyone agrees with how to do it.”

Montgomery, a former Division II Softball Committee member and current Championships Committee representative, said a more uniform game count would benefit the selection committee since it could weigh teams with similar schedules instead of the current format in which some teams under consideration will have played 20 or 30 more games than others.

But revising the tournament exception – especially eliminating it – could make it tougher for Midwest and Northern teams to get their games in, Montgomery said.

Georgian Court Athletics Director Laura Liesman, who chairs the softball committee, agreed that some sort of game cap would help the selection process. But she wondered whether many coaches have an appetite for going below 56 games. She acknowledged, though, that some correction was necessary.

“There is some sense that teams are playing too many games and that the disparity between regions is too great,” she said.

Liesman said Northern schools, such as her own, currently have to play either fewer games or spend thousands of dollars to participate in more tournaments in the South. Most schools can afford only one trip. “So the sense of the conversation among coaches was that we had better come up with a proposal that we can live with before we’re told what to do,” she said.

Division II coaches have precedent from which to work. Division I eliminated its tournament exception two years ago but maintained a 56-game cap. The action came from the division delaying its first date of competition from January 1 to the second Thursday in February – a concept that emerged after Northern schools complained that the earlier start gave teams in warmer climates an unfair advantage.

The new start date required a game cap, and Division I decided that dumping the tournament exception was the best approach. With two years of that format complete, complaints have been few.

Liesman said most Division II coaches could probably live with the Division I model. But the Life in the Balance effort is emphasizing both shorter seasons and cuts in games.

Donna Fields, coach at St. Mary’s (Texas) and former Management Council member, said the tournament culture is huge in softball, and that Northern schools may balk at losing it because of the efficiency it affords them in scheduling.

“The Northern schools that like to come south to play multiple tournaments may resist this idea,” she said. “They have a hard enough time scheduling games and if they have to travel 16 hours they want to play as many games as they can.”

The effect on midweek games also is a concern. Some want to craft the legislation to reduce midweek games and thus keep student-athletes from missing class, but others worry that it would force too many weekend doubleheaders. That’s where the 56 vs. 50 debate may accelerate.

The Championships and Legislation Committees – the two groups the Presidents Council has charged with leading the Life in the Balance review – meet Wednesday in Seattle to discuss the softball proposals, among many others. Whatever emerges there will go to the Management and Presidents Councils later this summer and eventually to the 2010 Convention floor.

It’s also safe to assume that whatever emerges may not satisfy everyone.

“While a reduction may lessen the geographic disparity, you’re probably never going to have an equal system,” Liesman said.