For some time now, the Division II membership has been engaged in a serious and pivotal discussion about balance as we review playing-and-practice season legislation and consider proposals to streamline our sports seasons and reduce contests where appropriate.

In this context, “balance” refers to the appropriate role and purpose of intercollegiate athletics in the overall college educational experience. As athletics administrators and members of the NCAA family, our decision-making in every facet of our student-centered enterprise – from academic requirements to championships – should be centered on and guided by the notion of whether the student-athlete’s overall collegiate experience is enhanced.

So the question we should be asking as we approach the 2010 NCAA Convention is this: What are the optimal Bylaw 17 parameters to most enhance the student-athlete’s experience during the fleeting four years of their enrollment at our respective institutions?

To make the best decisions, our membership (presidents, athletics directors, coaches and others) needs to be well-informed and have a broad frame of reference. It would be folly, for example, to build an addition onto one’s house without first developing thorough and careful blueprints. It also would be folly to allow residents (who are not ultimately accountable for the final product) of the house to make design decisions that have bearing on the structural soundness of the renovation.

Division II chancellors and presidents are the architects of our respective institutional blueprints and are ultimately responsible for the exact alignment of athletics with our institutions’ missions. Careful, intentional and thorough work must be done to gather input from ADs, coaches, faculty athletics representatives, senior woman administrators, sports information directors and student-athletes, but ultimately, the responsibility for balancing athletics in an academic environment falls to presidents. They have the necessary broad perspective.

Some may argue that presidents are not as aware as ADs, coaches and others of the issues under consideration. Presidents aren’t in the trenches managing the myriad details of an athletics program on a daily basis, they say. That sometimes may be the case, but that tends to be more a failure in communication than a failure of understanding. To be frank, if my president is not fully aware of the issues and challenges related to finding balance in athletics on our campus, it is my fault, not his.

This summer I had the opportunity to spend a day and a half with the Division II national Student-Athlete Advisory Committee in Denver, where we discussed Bylaw 17 at length. It was fascinating to observe the evolution of perspectives as the incredibly bright and talented student-athletes from around the country began to grasp that Bylaw 17 would not take something away from them, but rather give them (through “balance”) the opportunity to experience a vastly broader and deeper college experience without substantively diminishing their athletics experience. 

Student-athletes choose Division II because they want to compete at a very high level and at the same time have the opportunity to immerse themselves in the college experience. Division II student-athletes should be able to not only compete but also join in a study-abroad program or participate in a drama production or student government.

It’s a bonus that some of the proposed Bylaw 17 changes will save our member institutions a little money in tough economic times, but the real value of these legislative changes is in the enrichment of each student-athlete’s college experience. And at my institution – and I would hope at most Division II institutions – it is this kind of student-athlete experience that most aligns with the mission and purpose of the institution.

I fully embrace the notion of balance, and as the core of my work as an AD, I am committed to maintaining the broadest and deepest experience possible for each of our student-athletes. This value is in perfect alignment with the mission of my institution, and I believe, most Division II institutions.

I also appreciate and wish to preserve the athletics experience unique to Division II. I am convinced that both are vital to our student-athletes’ educational experience, and I’m equally convinced that thoughtful legislation will accomplish both.

Bob Fortosis is the athletics director at Eckerd College and a member of the Division II Management Council.