Division II’s discussion of how to modify playing and practice seasons to better align with its strategic-positioning platform intensified yesterday when the Management Council began reviewing the nuts and bolts of what to date have been broader concepts.

But not only was the “what” important to Council members, so was the “why.”

While the Council began warming to the idea of shortening seasons and reducing the maximum number of contests in certain sports where necessary, the primary takeaways from the group’s April 20-21 meeting in Indianapolis were that the discussion must be strategically rather than economically driven, and that proposals must be thoroughly vetted by the governance structure and other groups (for example, coaches associations, the Division II Athletics Directors Association and the Division II Conference Commissioners Association) to ensure meaningful input.

Those two premises were firmly entrenched as the Council began reviewing preliminary, broad-brush proposals from the Division II Legislation Committee regarding Bylaw 17 with an eye toward recommendations that would come to a membership vote at the 2010 Convention.

But because of the breadth of the concepts and the potential domino effect they could have on various sports, the Council had to work through initial fears that the goals were too aggressive and the pace too quick for the review to produce the desired outcome. However, once Council members aired their concerns and then hashed them out further in small-group breakout sessions, they experienced a couple of light-bulb moments.

The first was a realization that perhaps not all the issues associated with Bylaw 17 had to be addressed by January 2010. Rather, the Council is working toward identifying items that would have an immediate benefit and then targeting the 2011 Convention for the more complicated matters in order to get the constituency feedback necessary for the membership to make an informed decision.

Just as important, though, was the fact that as Council members worked through the issues, they came to better understand the review’s purpose.

“Any time you are asked to undertake a broad review of one of your core functions that perhaps not everyone regards as ‘broken,’ there’s a tendency to at least question the necessity,” said Management Council Chair Tim Selgo, the athletics director at Grand Valley State. “What I think the Council – and in fact the division itself – is beginning to realize, though, is that athletics is not immune to the changes swirling around us in higher education and elsewhere. It’s a good time for us to ask ourselves if our athletics principles align with the strategic principles we have worked so hard over the last five years to define.”

Indeed, the review comes from Division II presidents and chancellors asking the governance structure to ensure that playing and practice season policies align with the division’s strategic-positioning platform. Since the platform’s positioning statement demands “balance and integration” of academic achievement, learning in high-level athletics competition and community engagement, Division II presidents are wondering whether student-athletes’ time on the fields and courts is skewing that balance.

The review also coincides with the division’s attempt to develop better business practices to help with championship policies and travel issues. And while it’s a presidential directive, presidents aren’t the only ones welcoming the opportunity.

Several Council members noted changes already occurring at their institutions and in their conferences due to budget pressures. Coker AD Tim Griggs said presidents from Conference Carolinas schools already demanded a 10 percent cutback in that league’s maximum number of contests beginning next year. Eckerd AD Bob Fortosis said several schools in his league have frozen salaries or adopted contingency plans for layoffs. Scholarships aren’t being increased to keep up with costs, either.

“There is change happening in higher education, not only in athletics,” said Management Council member Rick Cole, the athletics director at Dowling. “We have to be out front and strategic to say who we want to be as these changes are happening around us.”

Three ‘consensus’ points

Once Council members became more comfortable with the reasons for the review, they began gravitating toward various options the Legislation Committee posed to effect strategic change. While almost everything is on the table – from shorter seasons and fewer games to reduced nonchampionship segments and eliminating exempted contests – the Council identified the following three areas that might fortify the academic/athletics balance and create better business practices for institutions.

Later reporting date for fall sports. Among the concepts the Legislation Committee identified after talking with various athletics stakeholders and constituents was to move the reporting date for fall-sport athletes back one week without changing the length of preseason practice.

Management Council members like the reduced financial burden that comes with housing and feeding student-athletes before the rest of the student body arrives on campus. They also like the fact that student-athlete health and safety isn’t compromised since the length of the preseason would remain the same.

What isn’t as clear with the later fall reporting date is whether the playing seasons in all sports would be shortened to account for the week  lost or whether the start of the championships would be delayed. The Legislation Committee wasn’t keen on a later reporting date without considering whether to shorten the season by one week (and cutting contests by the average played in one week for a given sport in order to reduce missed class time and physical hardship on student-athletes), but Management Council members want a sport-specific review of how each would accommodate the later reporting date.

For example, it quickly became clear that Council members weren’t interested in reducing the number of games in football because of that sport’s financial benefits (gate receipts, guarantees) for member schools, though they would entertain a later championship if television could accommodate it. Others wanted to see whether a delayed season for fall sports would overlap the start of winter sports and thus create facility pressures on campus.

‘Dead period’ for winter sports. The Management Council is intrigued by an idea from Division II members of the National Association of Basketball Coaches that would impose a “dead period” on practice and competition during several days of winter break (the NABC group proposed December 20 through December 27 as an example) rather than reduce the number of games.

The Council commended the coaches for thinking “outside the box” and likes the idea so much that it is considering supporting the measure for all winter sports and not just basketball. The Council also is considering extending the dead period "window" to December 20 through January 1 and then giving institutions and conferences the option of designating a seven-day period within that time that suits their individual needs. The only pause is whether such a layoff in the middle of the season would present health risks to student-athletes who are then asked to gear up quickly for the conference portion of their teams’ schedules.

Reductions in baseball and softball. Council members seem willing to consider a Legislation Committee recommendation to reduce the number of games in baseball by 10 percent (from 56 games to 50). They also want to make cuts in softball, but they might get at it by eliminating the tournament exception in the sport, which would mean that each game in a tournament would count as one game rather than have all games in that particular tournament count as one contest date.

While pushback on the latter might be expected, early feedback from softball coaches indicates many might actually favor the idea as a way to level the playing field when it comes to selections for the national championship.

Whatever the outcome on baseball and softball, Council members emphasized that the reviews for those two sports should be mutually exclusive. In other words, baseball and softball are very different sports when it comes to playing and practice seasons and should be treated as such.

Additionally, Council members supported considering whether the start date for competition should be the second Thursday in February (instead of February 1, which is the current rule). 

Managing the message

While Selgo was happy with the Council’s progress on the Bylaw 17 discussion, he didn’t sugarcoat the message in his wrap-up to the group before the meeting adjourned.

“This is a huge issue,” he said. “And the next several months are an important feedback-gathering time.”

The Council will send its input to the Legislation Committee, which next meets in June. Part of that meeting is a joint session with the Championships Committee, which also has been charged with leading the playing and practice season review. The latter group is reviewing bracket sizes, travel parties and current formats (for example, how regions are determined, length of the event, time between selections and first round) to see whether changes are necessary. Both the Legislation Committee and the Championships Committee are encouraging input from the membership at large as they prepare for their June meetings.

Those two committees will then submit recommendations back to the Management and Presidents Councils in July.

Selgo said his group will be ready.

“This review is as much about the process as it is about the product,” he said. “It has been interesting to watch people develop a comfort level with these ideas. In some ways that comfort level has been prompted by the potential discomfort of being perceived as resisting strategic-based change in a time when other people in higher education are having change more forcefully thrust upon them.

“Division II is in a good position to take the next step in what has been a five-year strategic progression of identifying who we are and what we stand for.”