I am concerned about the Championships/Competition Cabinet's consideration of possible playing and practice season alterations in Division I.

The college experience is designed to be an unequalled opportunity, an environment in which young men and women can find all the resources and personnel that we can coordinate for the education and development of our young citizens. Within the student bodies of schools offering athletics alongside academics, there are many individuals whose passion for sport has brought their ambition for achievement to the collegiate arena. They have been enticed by a level of competition that inspires them to achieve their potential. It is an opportunity enhanced by state-of-the-art facilities and top-level coaching expertise.

Sharing such a regimen with teammates who are equally gifted and motivated, many of these athletes willingly take full advantage of all legitimate volunteer practices and enroll in summer school to maintain the consistency of their training.

I have no doubt that there are coaches who misuse and abuse the existing rules, just as there are scholarship student-athletes whose love for their sport has fallen to the wayside, making their participation nothing more than a job performed to pay for their education. Whatever contempt we might have for such coaches and whatever disappointment for such athletes, we should not lose sight of our most important principle: opportunity. To eliminate it, or even in any way to reduce it, in an effort to compensate for cheating coaches or to placate unhappy students addresses the issue from the wrong angle. This entire problem is much more one of integrity of coaches and policing by each individual institution's administration.

Coaches certainly have concerns about required time for preparation, safety and potential loss of revenue by a forced reduction of playing-season opportunities. There also are concerns about accountability, and about student-athletes whose existing training and competing time divided into the financial equivalents of their education, room and board, academic counseling, books, athletic training, travel, uniforms, and student-wellness services calculates out to a wage between $50 to $100 an hour. All of those concerns, however, take a back seat to what might really be lost: opportunity for those who have come to our campuses to take advantage of it.

James H. Stephenson
Co-Head Coach, Women's Gymnastics
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Baseball, softball victimized by playing-season proposal

Once again, Division III baseball and softball are under attack. Proposed legislation for the 2003 Convention will have a huge impact on the Division III baseball and softball schedule. The proposal (No. 41 in the Official Notice) will cut games and weeks from the baseball season if passed.

The opportunity to play is the most important consideration to student-athletes. They all want to play in competitive contests, and here we are trying to eliminate games, practice opportunities and cut the length of the season.

Compared to other sports in other divisions, Division III baseball players have reduced playing opportunities. Division III baseball and softball student-athletes play 40 games, or 71 percent of a Division I or Division II baseball schedule. Division III soccer players have the most opportunities when compared with their Divisions I and II counterparts (20 games, the same number as Divisions I and II teams). Division III football and basketball student-athletes play about 90 percent of a Division I or II schedule, while Division III tennis, volleyball and swimming student-athletes play about 80 percent of a Division I or II slate.

If the proposal passes at the 2003 Convention, baseball would be reduced to 36 games, or 64 percent of a Division I or II schedule. This would be completely unfair to our baseball and softball student-athletes.

An equitable solution would be to allow baseball and softball to play 45 games per year. That would put the two sports at 80 percent of their Divisions I and II counterparts, which is comparable to other Division III sports. The 45 games could be split between the traditional and nontraditional seasons at the discretion of each institution. The playing season should be limited to 19 weeks, with spring break not counting against that total.

Jim Mallon
Associate Director of Athletics
Co-Head Baseball Coach
Southwestern University (Texas)

Rugby a low-cost alternative to solve Title IX imbalance

There is a simple solution to the struggle between Title IX advocates and the football-wrestling community, and that is women's rugby.

The addition of women's contact-sport opportunities within the NCAA framework can be an equitable and cost-effective means of correcting this dilemma. Rugby teams, due to their large rosters, can shore up the deficiencies in meeting Title IX female participation requirements. Furthermore, rugby provides contact field sport opportunities for women similar to football -- a prospective more "in spirit" with the law.

Currently, there are 302 women's college rugby clubs and 74 women's high-school programs in the United States, according to Rugby magazine.

The loss of any varsity sport program is troubling. Why cast away a men's sport when a women's sport could be added? Cost is the primary concern for administrators, but why not seek low-cost alternatives instead of simply eliminating men's sports? Women's rugby is one such low-cost alternative. For example, the basic game-day uniform and equipment cost for a single football player begins at $800 and can run well into the thousands. By comparison, game-day uniform and equipment for a rugby player runs from $180 to $300 at the most.

In adding a new program, team travel and coaching are significant costs, but these intangibles provide significant value for student-athletes in the form of experience and mentoring. The standard rugby coaching staff of three (only one needs to be full-time) should prove sufficient for varsity programs.

The addition of women's rugby to the NCAA emerging sports program should be expedited in the next year. I suggest that the NCAA membership take the opportunity to end the equity debate by adding additional women's sports, including rugby, and provide females the opportunity to play contact sports at the varsity collegiate level.

Jon Moore
Utah Rugby Referees Society
Assistant Professor of Geography,
Utah Valley State College

Editor's note: For more information about rugby as an emerging sport, see the February 18, 2002, issue of The NCAA News.

Proportionality should suffer same fate as teeter-totters

Phillip L. Henson's analogy in the October 28 NCAA News comparing the current proportionality (quota) interpretation of Title IX to a teeter-totter is both clever and somewhat appropriate. Almost all teeter-totters have been removed from the playgrounds in this country because they have been found to be a danger to our children. The current proportionality (quota) interpretation of Title IX also is a danger to our children, and it, too, should be removed.

Stephen P. Erber
Director of Athletics
Muhlenberg College