The Division II Presidents Council affirmed its support for a four-proposal legislative package headed to the 2010 NCAA Convention that is designed to streamline seasons and reduce the maximum number of contests in 10 sports, including basketball.

The proposals, called the “Life in the Balance” initiative, establish a later reporting date for fall-sport student-athletes and reduce the playing seasons in cross country, soccer, field hockey and volleyball by one week; introduce a week-long “dead period” for winter sports; and reduce contests in baseball, softball and golf.

The package is the result of the Presidents Council’s charge to the division to align playing-and-practice-season policies with the division’s strategic-positioning platform.

The Division II Legislation and Championships Committees collaborated on proposal development through input and feedback from coaches associations and other governance constituents. Then the Presidents Council endorsed the package this summer (and in fact added basketball to the package) and pledged an aggressive campaign at its meeting Thursday in Indianapolis to garner additional support from presidential colleagues between now and the January 16 Division II business session in Atlanta.

Council members emphasized that the overall purpose of the package is to give back to student-athletes rather than take something away. While some student-athlete groups and coaches have resisted the idea of cutting contests, presidents counter that the proposals allow students to participate in the entire college experience.

Presidents Council chair Stephen Jordan said some of the feedback has been portrayed as “presidents being punitive.”

“On the contrary,” he said, “we’re using data on student-athlete time demands as indicators of how best to prepare the whole person. In other words, what’s the right mix of academics, athletics and other campus elements to best facilitate the student experience? The data we have show that we might not have the right mix. This is not about punishment, but about making the best judgment we can about giving student-athletes the best experience for a lifetime.”

Jordan and his colleagues reiterated that the “balance” being sought is much broader than just between academics and athletics. In that vein, Presidents Council members agreed to personalize their approach with e-mails and letters that point to an executive summary on the Life in the Balance proposals they say portrays a more accurate picture of why the initiative is necessary.

The presidents hope such outreach might alleviate a perceived tension in the membership about the intent of the package. Some Council members said that tension is heightened by a “fear of the unknown.” Since the Presidents Council has indicated that the Life in the Balance review will extend into next year with a study of nonchampionship segments and exempted contests, some presidents are hearing from constituents who worry that more drastic measures are on the way.

Council member Pat O’Brien from West Texas A&M said, “I hear the same concerns from my SAAC and coaches – most support our intent, but they fear the unknown. They think Phase 1 this year might open the door to cutbacks they couldn’t tolerate next year. We need to encourage presidents and chancellors to talk with their SAACs and with their coaches. Once they realize we’re not being punitive – that we’re trying to help them do well as students – they tend to see the bigger picture.”

O’Brien also said there’s more buy-in once people understand that action is being taken as a division. He said individuals already have complained about things like expanding seasons and athletics policies that aren’t cost-effective, but they’re afraid to take action on their own for competitive-equity reasons.

Overall, though, the Presidents Council regards the Life in the Balance initiative as a leadership opportunity. They noted, in fact, the recent survey from the Knight Commission revealing Division I presidents’ concern about their ability to bring about change and concluded that this is a chance for Division II presidents to demonstrate their resolve.

“The idea that presidents feel powerless is problematic,” said Clarion’s Joe Grunenwald. “The Life in the Balance initiative is where we have to stand up – if we receive pushback, then we have to push back, too. We have to send the message that this matters.”

Membership proposals, standards

In other action at the Presidents Council meeting, members reviewed three legislative proposals the membership submitted for the 2010 Convention. As the Management Council did two weeks earlier, the Presidents Council opposed two of them and took no position on the third.

The presidents opposed a measure to move the first competition date for basketball to the second Friday in November rather than the traditional November 15. They also opposed a proposal to eliminate the requirement that an institution must provide a prospective student-athlete written notice of the five official-visit limit.

The Council took no position on a proposal to spread out the nonchampionship segment in golf to 24 days in 60 consecutive calendar days, in part because the ongoing Life in the Balance review might address that concern.

In non-legislative discussion, the presidents began to talk philosophically about a series of enhanced standards for prospective Division II member institutions to meet when they apply to enter the membership process. The Division II Membership Committee has begun to clarify a number of “minimum expectations” that prospective schools should meet even before they apply, but the Membership Committee and the Presidents Council believe even more evaluation criteria may be necessary should there be an influx of applicants in the future.

Molloy President Drew Bogner, who represents the Council on the Membership Committee, said the philosophy about the membership process has changed in recent years from one of allowing schools to strengthen their weaknesses during the membership process to demanding they be fixed beforehand.

“We have seen problems with the former strategy,” he said. “Ideally, the membership process shouldn’t be used to let people in and allow them to work things out along the way.”

In addition, there’s more of a demand for Division II membership, he said, now that the division has successfully branded itself as an attractive membership destination. The Membership Committee, in fact, recently approved a policy stipulating that no more than 30 institutions can be in the membership process in a given year.

Bogner said it’s possible that limit might be tested in the near future once institutions considering a move become comfortable and proficient in meeting the minimum expectations. That’s why Bogner asked the Presidents Council for additional evaluation criteria to serve as a “tiebreaker” if the pipeline gets too crowded.

Other Council members agreed with the approach, comparing it to the admissions process many schools use to deal with an overflow of prospective students.

Bogner said he’ll pursue the matter further with the Membership Committee when it meets later this fall, and that the Presidents Council will revisit the additional criteria at a future meeting.