NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland – Division II delegates made quick work of their business session January 17 at the NCAA Convention, acting on 13 proposals in about two and a half hours, with only a few surprises.

Legislation adopted includes an athlete-friendly calculation of hardship waivers in which maximum limits per Bylaw 17 may be used as an option, and an official recognition of sand volleyball as an emerging sport for women beginning in August 2010. Also winning favor was a membership-sponsored measure that allows schools to exempt basketball games played as part of a “conference challenge” event from contest limits once every three years.

The hardship-waiver proposal (No. 2009-8) was perhaps more confusing than controversial. It specifies that a student-athlete’s eligibility for a hardship waiver may be determined by:

•         The number of the institution’s completed contests or dates of competition, or

•         The maximum permissible number of contests or dates of competition in Bylaw 17 for the applicable sport.

The legislation also counts contests in the conference championship in determining the institution’s completed contests or dates of competition in that sport.

Currently, a student-athlete can apply for a hardship waiver as long as the season-ending injury or illness occurred before he or she played in more than two contests or dates of competition, or in more than 20 percent of the team’s scheduled or completed games (whichever is greater).

The proposal that originated from the Lone Star Conference and the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association replaces the 20-percent-of-scheduled-contests option with 20 percent of the limits provided by sport in Bylaw 17. Division II delegates liked that option as a more consistent and student-athlete-friendly method by which a student-athlete whose participation is interrupted by serious injury or illness could qualify for an additional season of eligibility.

In supporting the measure from the floor, Central Missouri Faculty Athletics Representative Paul Engelmann said the change “ensures that a baseball student-athlete, for example, who plays for a school that schedules only 36 games gets the same benefit as the one that schedules 56.”

With its passage, Proposal No. 2009-8 regulates cases that occur on or after August 1, 2009. Cases occurring between August 1, 2007, and July 31, 2009, will be handled through either the current rule or the new one, whichever most benefits the student-athlete.

The proposal to add sand volleyball as an emerging sport for women was coupled with the removal of archery, badminton, synchronized swimming and team handball from the emerging-sports list. The addition of sand volleyball is being delayed until August 2010 to allow further development of rules regarding the length of the playing and practice season, financial aid limits, uniforms and the number of participants per team, among others.

The proposal permitting conference-challenge events in basketball (No. 2009-13) allows schools, once every three years, to exempt from the maximum contest limits no more than two games played as part of a “conference challenge” event. That proposal came from the MIAA and the Peach Belt as a way to provide more in-region, nonconference games for championship-selection purposes and to build better business practices for institutional travel.

Summer workout measure defeated

Among the three proposals defeated at the business session was one that would have permitted strength and conditioning personnel to design and conduct student-athlete-requested workouts during the summer. The vote was close (119-153-3) and likely failed because it lacked support from key constituents, including presidents, faculty and student-athletes.

The Faculty Athletics Representatives Association “strongly opposed” the measure because it could increase off-season demands on student-athletes, even though it would be up to the student-athlete to request the workout. The Division II SAAC’s opposition was based on a perceived likelihood that “voluntary” would become “mandatory” and that those activities would then intrude on other non-athletics opportunities (travel, jobs) that student-athletes enjoy in the summer.

Indianapolis President Beverley Pitts said the proposal “would shift the focus in the summer from academics to athletics.” Pitts is a member of the Presidents Council, which also opposed the measure, as did the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports.

Several delegates, however, thought the proposal added structure and lessened health and safety risks for student-athletes who already seek these types of summer programs. Texas A&M-Kingsville Athletics Director Scott Gines said the proposal doesn’t alter the voluntary nature of the activities. “The only change,” he said, “is how strength and conditioning coaches interact with our student-athletes.” Gines said student-athletes electing to reside on campuses and use strength and conditioning facilities is in itself a voluntary act, and the proposal would provide a better environment for what already was occurring.

“Many Division II student-athletes go through rigorous training in the summer whether they are enrolled or not,” Abilene Christian AD Jared Mosley said. “The risks and liabilities are there.”

The closest vote of the day may also have been the most surprising. Delegates defeated by just 11 votes (131-142) a proposal from the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association and the Peach Belt Conference that would have set the first-contest date in basketball as the second Friday in November.

Convention delegates in 2008 defeated a similar proposal from the Peach Belt and Northeast-10, and this year’s version did not seem to gain momentum as it progressed through the governance structure. But MIAA Commissioner Jim Johnson was persuasive on the 2009 Convention floor when he noted that 286 games (exhibition or “discretionary” games that do not count toward maximum limits) were played before November 15 this year – which to him indicated that the membership may be interested in playing countable games during that period as well. The subsequent vote supported that notion, though neither of the two sponsors moved to reconsider the proposal during the window of opportunity.

The other proposal delegates defeated was No. 2009-9, which went down despite being supported by the Presidents Council.

The proposal would have assessed a two-for-one withholding condition when a season-of-competition waiver is granted for eligible student-athletes who participate in a limited amount of non-regular-season competition due to a coach’s misunderstanding of the legislation.

Several delegates, though, thought the condition was overly punitive to student-athletes.

“Don’t put this on the backs of student-athletes,” said Lock Haven AD Sharon Taylor, who added she could think of a number of more appropriate alternatives, including institutional fines.

The argument that the proposal would align Division II rules with those in Division I did not sway opposition, either. Taylor in fact said the measure contradicts the division’s strategic-positioning platform, and after the vote went her way, she announced to the ballroom that this vote should be “instructive” to the governance structure going forward.

The Division II SAAC also spoke against the proposal, which was defeated in a show of paddles.

For results on all the proposals, click here.