The Division II Legislation Committee has advanced a proposal into the 2010 Convention cycle that frames a competitive structure for sand volleyball.

Division II approved sand volleyball as an emerging sport for women at the 2009 Convention, meaning that institutions could begin counting it toward sport-sponsorship minimums by August 1, 2010. The action triggered the Legislation Committee drafting legislation for the 2010 Convention that would dictate how the sport would be conducted.

While much of the sand volleyball proposal is structured similar to other spring sports (such as general playing-season regulations, for example), what is of primary interest to Legislation Committee members and others is how financial aid will be structured, since that has a potential bearing on the indoor game in the fall.

The sand game’s competitive effect on existing indoor programs, in fact, is driving a potential override of sand volleyball in Division I. While the Division I Legislative Council approved the emerging sport in April, enough override requests have been submitted since then to require the Council to decide whether to uphold its initial decision. If it upholds the decision during a conference call later this month, the matter will go to the 2010 Convention, where a five-eighths vote would be required to override sand volleyball as an emerging sport in Division I.

Division II can’t wait, though, for Division I to settle its override issue, even though it may be incumbent upon Division I schools to reach the minimum of 40 sponsoring institutions required to establish a National Collegiate championship.

Thus, of the options proposed, the Division II Legislation Committee at its June 25 meeting selected a “hierarchy” model for the five equivalencies allotted to sand volleyball.

Because it is likely that the sand game in its early years will rely on indoor players to populate its rosters, the “hierarchy” model requires a student-athlete who participates in both sports to count against the indoor game’s eight equivalencies. Officials say that precludes institutions from gaining a competitive advantage in the indoor version by offering sand volleyball financial aid to student-athletes who were recruited to play indoor volleyball.

It is the same model implemented decades ago to alleviate fears that women’s basketball programs would “load up” their rosters with players on volleyball money. The hierarchy method has also been used in the past to “separate” swimming and water polo programs.

The Legislation Committee favored the hierarchy model over an alternative that would have staggered an increase in equivalencies over five years to allow institutions to plan for future budget cycles while considering competitive equity.

Other key elements of the sand volleyball proposal the committee is advancing include:

• A minimum roster size of 10 to count contests toward sport-sponsorship minimums.
• A first practice date of January 10 (or the first day of classes at the institution, whichever is earlier).
• A first permissible contest date of February 1.
• A non-championship segment consisting of 24 participation days in 45 consecutive calendar days.
• A maximum of 16 dates of competition (four during the non-championship segment), with alumni games, and conference and national championship competition among the exemptions.
• A minimum of eight dates of competition for postseason-selection purposes, three of which may be conducted as dual matches and the remainder as either duals or tournaments.

A separate committee will be appointed to develop playing rules for sand volleyball.

“While Division I appears to be unsettled about sand volleyball at this point, Division II is doing its due diligence to provide a structure for those institutions that wish to pursue adding these opportunities for women,” said Legislation Committee Chair Ann Martin. “We hear from a number of institutions that the current economic situation facing all of higher education presents a challenging environment in which to add sports, but we want to have a structure in place nonetheless for a sport the division agreed to include as emerging.”

In other action at the Legislation Committee meeting, members put the finishing touches on a revised organized-competition rule that removes compensation as the trigger for seasons of competition and introduces a year-long grace period between high school graduation and initial full-time collegiate enrollment during which prospects may engage in organized competition without penalty.

The grace period is designed to take some of the guess work out of the system and not disadvantage the more nontraditional students who for personal or family reasons do not enroll in college right away.

The proposal also more broadly defines activities that constitute organized competition.