Division II members currently are engaged in a “Life in the Balance” initiative to align the division’s playing and practice season policies with the balance theme outlined in the Division II strategic-positioning platform.

The Division II Legislation and Championships Committees – the groups the Division II Presidents Council has charged with leading the review – have been working to formulate legislative proposals that could be ready for a membership vote at the 2010 NCAA Convention.

The ideas so far that appear to have momentum are moving the reporting date for fall-sport student-athletes back one week, establishing a seven-day inactive period for practice and games during the winter break for all winter sports, moving the start date for competition in spring sports to later in February, and reducing the number of contests in baseball and softball (in softball by eliminating the tournament exception).

While those are merely preliminary concepts, the Division II Presidents Council has urged a much more comprehensive review that may go beyond the 2010 Convention. The presidents are interested not only in aligning Division II behaviors with the division’s attribute-based platform but also creating better business practices that alleviate financial pressure on institutions caught in an economic downturn that affects all of higher education (not just athletics). Presidents Council Chair Stephen Jordan outlines these concerns in a video about the Life in the Balance initiative.

Though the Legislation and Championships Committees are performing much of the groundwork, the Division II Management Council will play a major role in formulating the final proposals and communicating the rationale and purpose of the Life in the Balance initiative. The Council role is heightened by the fact that it is composed primarily of athletics “practitioners” – athletics directors, conference commissioners, senior woman administrators and faculty reps – who implement the playing and practice season legislation and understand its effects on a core function of intercollegiate athletics.

Management Council Chair Tim Selgo, athletics director at Grand Valley State, talked with The NCAA News about the Life in the Balance initiative and how Council members and other athletics practitioners are dealing with the need to conduct this comprehensive review.

NCAA News: It’s interesting to watch how different constituents react to possible changes in Bylaw 17. ADs and conference officers seem initially reluctant, while presidents seem to want to press the accelerator. As chair of the Management Council, how do you go about persuading the athletics practitioners that this is a good idea?

Selgo: It’s clear that the presidents reaffirmed that we need to align Bylaw 17 with the “Life in the Balance” stated in our strategic plan, and that everything is on the table for discussion so that we realign Bylaw 17 in terms of cost savings, missed class time and student-athlete experience. There is no question that by putting everything on the table, they were clear that it meant reductions in contests, reductions in length of seasons, eliminating contest exemptions, eliminating conference tournaments in team sports, reducing the number of game officials, and making changes in regionalization requirements that cause higher travel costs − for example, in-region contests. Obviously, we’re not going to change all of those areas this year, but the message from the presidents is loud and clear that all of these possibilities be considered over the long term.

NCAA News: People talk about the benefits of moving the reporting dates for fall-sport athletes back, yet some seem to have a tough time understanding what the effects would be. What are the cost benefits from an operational perspective, and what are the benefits to the student-athletes themselves?

Selgo: If you ask any AD at a school that sponsors football, the biggest cost savings in everything we are talking about would occur in one less week of housing and feeding football student-athletes before the start of classes. When you add other fall sports on top of that, pushing the season back one week would result in a significant savings for each institution – and the sum total around the country would be a staggering number. Secondly, pushing the start date back one week will be healthy for student-athletes and coaches alike. It gives everyone one additional week in the summer, which is important for both student-athletes and staff to have that break from the daily grind of college athletics.

NCAA News: People talk about this idea of “season creep,” particularly in baseball and basketball. Why has Division II allowed seasons to expand over time, and what has caused leaders to realize that the division has possibly reached a tipping point?

Selgo: Season creep has occurred in Division II primarily because it has occurred in Division I. There isn’t any other rational reason other than in athletics sometimes our competitive spirit takes over and we always want to do more. I believe – and I agree with the presidents on this – that it’s time we take a look at this and put a halt to season creep. Most of us who are charged with the administration of Division II athletics programs have “felt” season creep, and upon closer examination, we’ve discovered that, yes, we certainly have had it. We indeed need to address it.

NCAA News: Given the current economic pressures, schools are beginning to cut sports. Can the Life in the Balance initiative help avoid that outcome? In other words, could these better business practices – whether implemented unilaterally or collectively – result in enough efficiencies to help institutions save a sport that would otherwise be on the chopping block?

Selgo: The cumulative effect of the reductions we eventually approve could possibly save some schools from dropping sports. That is what we always have to keep in mind as we’re going through these discussions this year. If you align our playing and practice seasons with our strategic plan, it would mean that we want to continue to have these teams, and if we don’t address this now, we’re going to see some major problems with respect to the elimination of teams, and that would be the last thing we would want in Division II. We already are seeing this happening now at an alarming rate in Division I.

NCAA News: Some of the reluctance to reduce seasons or contests is based in the perception that Division II may lose recruits to Division I because they know they can play more games there. There also may be a perception that the reductions diminish the competitive level of Division II athletics. How do you counter those perceptions?

Selgo: It’s important for all athletics administrators not to overreact on this issue. We need to take a good, mature look at this with respect to everyone involved. Nobody, including the presidents, wants to diminish the competitive level of Division II, and I believe we can examine these issues and develop solutions that won’t hurt our competitive level at all.

NCAA News: How can people weigh in on this?

Selgo: We want to hear feedback from everyone involved. We need to be respectful of the presidents’ request, but we also need to add our athletics expertise to come up with solutions that make the best sense for Division II with respect to balancing our student-athletes’ athletics and academic pursuits in light of the economic realities facing all of higher education.

I have heard a concern that this issue is on too fast of a track, with the 2010 Convention being the target date or “deadline” for membership action. It is important to note, however, that the items thus far that seem to be on a path toward the 2010 Convention (earlier fall reporting dates, an inactive period during the winter break, a later reporting date for spring sports and possible game reductions in baseball and softball) are those that appear to already have support from a good portion of Division II stakeholders.

However, the presidents have called for a more comprehensive review of Bylaw 17 for all sports that likely will extend beyond the 2010 Convention. With that in mind, we want to ensure that everyone’s voices are heard, which is why the Division II leadership is working with the Division II Conference Commissioners Association and the Division II Athletics Directors Association, among other groups, to keep everyone apprised of our progress and to gather feedback that help us formulate the best proposals.

These next few months in fact will be critical. The Legislation and Championships Committees, which already are holding periodic conference calls to develop recommendations, will meet jointly in June and submit ideas to the Management Council’s summer summit in Denver (July 18-21) and the Presidents Council meeting in August. I urge everyone to contact their conference representative on the Management Council or a member of the Presidents Council for updates and to offer feedback as we move ahead.