National Collegiate Athletic Association

NCAA News Archive - 2010

back to 2010 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index

Feb 24, 2010 9:10:43 AM

Part 2 of a four-part series on Phase II of the Division II Life in the Balance initiative.

Of all the review areas in Phase II of the Life in the Balance initiative for the 2011 Convention, the array of annual and discretionary exemptions in Division II sports may be the most ripe for change.

Even through all of last year in Phase I, many of the discussions veered toward some of these exemptions as being expendable. But as harmless as adjustments to games that don't even count may sound, a deeper look into what these contests mean to individual institutions reveals that any proposed changes will have to be carefully considered.

First, what are "exempted" contests? There are two kinds. One is an "annual" exemption, which may include alumni meets, conference championships or fund-raising activities. Institutions have an unlimited number of such events at their disposal.

The other type of exemption is "discretionary," which means a scrimmage or a contest against a non-Division II school. The basketball games many Division II teams play in the preseason against Division I schools are examples.

Teams may also exempt competition against Division II schools in Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico, which is important since there are more Division II schools in those areas than any other division.

But the challenge is that each sport has its own list of exemptions that may be excluded from the maximum number of contests or dates of competition each year, though the Legislation Committee has narrowed its review only to those sports whose seasons conclude with a Division II championship (thus excluding National Collegiate Championship sports and emerging sports for women).

These exemptions also mean different things to different schools. Some generate significant revenue (such as the basketball games against Division I teams). Others foster regional relationships with schools that otherwise wouldn't be on the schedule (and because of proximity are inexpensive to stage), while others maintain important ties with alumni and donors.

But while it's apparent that a cookie-cutter approach might not work, many members appear to be open to cutting back on some of these contests.

"There's at least some momentum to base a review on the value these events bring to the institution," Division II Vice President Mike Racy said. "Eliminating the guarantee games in basketball, for example, might not be in the division's best interests because they generate a good deal of revenue for the schools. Thus it's easier to protect exemptions that align with Division II principles or provide benefits to the student-athletes and schools.

"But if there are ways to develop a list based on data that reveal contests of lesser value, then those areas might be where the proposals end up being targeted."

The data Racy cited are being gathered through a questionnaire sent in mid-December asking member schools how they have used their exemptions over the last three years. The Legislation Committee will find all of that useful when it meets in March to begin developing concepts.

"Each of the exemptions was put in for a reason, such as the ones to help the schools in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, so I'm interested in who uses them and for what purpose," said Peach Belt Conference Associate Commissioner Diana Kling, who also is a member of the Legislation Committee. "That will drive how we prioritize our recommendations."

Some people already are waving well-reasoned yellow flags. A few Championships Committee members at their meeting earlier this month cautioned against eliminating exemptions for foreign tours based on their educational value for student-athletes. Others – particularly members in the West regions – want to protect the exemptions for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico because of the value of those games to those regions. Alumni games also add value, some say – not so much with revenue but good will – and are worth keeping.

But other people see opportunities in the review.

For example, Division II sport committees in their postseason selection processes place a premium on in-region, nonconference games. In some regions, those games are hard to come by. Sonoma State Athletics Director and Championships Committee member Bill Fusco cited his region as a case study.

In basketball, the California Collegiate Athletic Association has 12 schools, meaning they play a 22-game conference schedule. With the Phase I proposal reducing the 27-game basketball season by one, that allows CCAA schools just four nonconference games. Meanwhile, the other leagues in the region – the Pac-West and the Great Northwest Athletic Conference, are composed of seven and nine members, respectively, meaning they have to add more nonconference games. Because the CCAA teams aren't necessarily available, there's not as much chance for in-region nonconference games for the other two leagues.

"Also unique to this region are the restrictions teams out here are putting on travel," Fusco said, citing cash-strapped California as Exhibit A. "Most if not all the schools in the CCAA are limiting travel to in-state, which eliminates trips to Washington, Oregon, Alaska and Hawaii. That puts a crimp on other schools in the region.

"And on state university campuses in California that are having severe budget issues – to say that your men's basketball team is going to Idaho to play in a tournament doesn't go over very well when you can go right down the road and play Notre Dame de Namur, the Academy of Art or Dominican. That, to me, heightens the review in Phase II."

One idea being floated is to encourage in-region, nonconference games by offering them as an exemption. Some people think that might generate more in-region "Tip-Off" tournaments early in the season. Right now, the Disney Tip-Off Classics in Orlando and Anaheim are exempt, but they almost always involve out-of-region games that don't do as much good for the selection committee.

Other ideas are more quid pro quo in that some members wouldn't mind considering cuts in exemptions as long as the contests in the nonchampionship segment were left alone (the nonchampionship segment is another area of review in Phase II).

Another idea with support is to let institutions have more autonomy in choosing their exemptions. A concept that came close to being a proposal in Phase I was for basketball teams to choose among playing a combination of regular-season and exempted games. For example, teams could choose to play the full complement of regular-season games and no exemptions, or a one-for-one trade-off to accommodate up to three exemptions. That didn't make the cut for Phase I, but it generated interest.

"To be sure, there are a number of ideas being discussed," Racy said. "And that's good, given that it's only February. This is when the division needs to do its best thinking."

The fruits of that thinking will emerge with legislative concepts from the Legislation Committee next month.

Coming in Part 3: A look at the nonchampionship segment. Share your feedback, ideas and thoughts for Life in the Balance Phase II by sending an e-mail to lifeinthebalance@ncaa.org. That e-mail is monitored for feedback and ideas only and is not meant for questions requesting a response.