National Collegiate Athletic Association

NCAA News Archive - 2010

back to 2010 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index

Jan 4, 2010 9:02:12 AM

After almost a full year of discussion and debate, Division II members are poised to vote on a four-proposal "Life in the Balance" initiative that aims to streamline sports seasons, trim costs by implementing more efficient playing-and-practice-season policies and reduce the maximum number of games or contest dates in several sports, including basketball.

While Division II has faced landmark decisions at previous NCAA Conventions, there is a special element to the votes that will be taken at this year's Division II business session January 16.

Division II has spent four years implementing a strategic-positioning platform that hinges upon a balanced educational and athletics experience for student-athletes. So far, the implementation of that platform has primarily been about the Division II brand, such as community engagement, game environment, budgeting and the championships festivals. Rarely, though, has a division performed a gut check on its playing-and-practice-season policies to ensure that goals are transformed into action.

While all NCAA member schools are striving to balance budgets and enhance the educational experience for their student-athletes in ways that align with the NCAA mission and goals, Division II's Life in the Balance legislative package is a collective approach that is a natural progression in our platform – and perhaps the first that deals strictly with the games themselves.

At last year's Convention, about 70 Division II presidents discussed whether the balance that is so integral to the platform had become skewed by athletics time commitments that compromised class work and a playing schedule that over the years had become bloated with exempted contests, regular-season games and postseason tournaments. In short, they wondered whether student-athletes were spending more time on the fields and courts than they were in the classroom.

Recent data from a longitudinal study of time demands supported that notion, showing that Division II student-athletes in some sports were devoting almost as much time – if not more – to athletics as their Division I counterparts. In addition, tales of teams in some sports playing as many as 60 or 70 games in a season alarmed leaders concerned that Division II's on-field behaviors were straying from the balance being advocated in the strategic-positioning platform.

With those concerns as an impetus, the Division II Presidents Council charged the governance structure with reviewing playing-and-practice-season legislation and developing proposals that would protect the academic/athletics balance that is critical to our identity campaign.

The resulting proposals heading to Atlanta were not developed in a vacuum. Even before the governance structure finalized them in June, input was solicited from coaches associations, the Division II Conference Commissioners Association and the Division II Athletics Directors Association, as well as from other governance groups and the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

In my mind, these are significant and strategic measures being proposed by an NCAA presidential group that has the bigger picture in mind. Not only do the proposals address the student-athlete balance that has become such a hallmark of Division II's identity, but they also suggest better business practices that help athletics departments manage their budgets and continue to maintain a quality experience for their student-athletes. These options certainly beat the alternative of doing nothing now and then risk having to cut entire sports programs later.

The proposals also address academic concerns. One way to achieve academic reform is to implement metrics and penalties similar to what Division I adopted with its Academic Progress Rate and accompanying progression of consequences for under-performing programs. Another way, though, is to change the conditions in which student-athletes compete so they can be academically successful. By shortening seasons and reducing contests, we believe we can keep academic achievement as a priority in Division II.

Not surprisingly, the idea of cutting games and shortening seasons has not been fully embraced by some coaches, administrators and a few of the athletes themselves who tend to regard those activities as among their core pursuits. Instead of perceiving the initiative as taking away from these individuals, however, Division II presidents and chancellors regard them as giving back in the form of student-athlete well-being, work/life balance and more time to devote to being a student.

The seriousness of the proposals indicates that "Life in the Balance" is not merely an idle concern for Division II. It isn't often that a division proposes legislation to reduce the number of athletics contests. As one athletics director said recently at a Division II governance meeting, "Intercollegiate athletics isn't very good at getting smaller."

Life in the Balance isn't about getting smaller, but about getting better.

Thomas J. Haas is the president at Grand Valley State University.