National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Delegates defer action on male practice players, seek data
Membership casts decisive votes on two proposals related to ongoing redshirting debate
Membership casts decisive votes on two proposals related to ongoing redshirting debate
|
By Jack Copeland
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
ORLANDO, Florida — Division III delegates indicated January 8 they aren’t prepared to decide on the most high-profile controversy of this year’s Convention — the use of male practice players in women’s sports.
However, they decisively settled another lingering question — whether current legislation that generally prohibits redshirting but permits some situational exceptions should be tightened even further.
Faced with a proposal originating from the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee to limit rather than eliminate use of male practice players, delegates responded to arguments that more information is needed before making a decision and referred the proposal to the Division III Management Council.
It was the first attempt in any NCAA division to deal legislatively with the contentious issue of whether it is appropriate to pair women’s teams against male practice players — and whether doing so deprives some women of competitive opportunities.
And delegates seemed to decide that Division III is too far ahead of the other divisions in making that determination, voting 359-62 (with three abstentions) to ask the Division III Management Council to collect more data about how widely males are used in practices by women’s teams and how they are employed.
After the Convention, the Management Council requested that Division III schools be included in upcoming surveys commissioned by Divisions I and II to determine the extent of use of male practice players. The Council asked that questions be included in the surveys to gauge institutions’ philosophical stance on the appropriateness of using males in practice situations.
The drumbeat to table Proposal No. 6 began before the Convention and was voiced January 7 during the Division III issues forum by Kathy DeBoer, executive director of the American Volleyball Coaches Association, who said more study is needed around a topic that has been “very, very high on emotion and very, very low on data.”
SAAC representatives did not challenge DeBoer’s assertion during the forum, nor similar sentiments expressed a day later during the business session as it became clear that delegates were moving toward referral of the question.
However, representatives of the group said before the business session that SAAC based its proposal on feedback gathered from student-athletes across Division III during the past 1 ½ years. They believe the proposal — which would have limited use of male practice players to one practice per week during the traditional season and permitted use of no more than one half the number of players required to field a starting women’s team — struck an appropriate balance between ensuring quality practices for teams with depleted squads and preserving participation opportunities for women.
The male practice player question wasn’t the only controversy whose resolution was deferred to another day.
Delegates also voted to refer to the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports a proposal that would have required the presence of at least one person certified in first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and use of an automatic external defibrillator (AED) — and familiar with emergency-plan activation policies — at all competitions and at required practices and strength and conditioning sessions involving student-athletes.
Delgates raised a number of questions during debate of Proposal No. 2 about situations in which the legislation might apply, as well as concerns about the practicality of covering sports such as cross country, golf and rowing where participants compete at far-flung or multiple sites, and the cost of certifying personnel in CPR and AED use.
Not even a passionate plea from Division III Presidents Council Vice Chair John Fry — who told delegates, “I don’t want to read any more stories about the untimely and unnecessary deaths of students,” and said it would be better to adopt the requirement first and then fix any unintended consequences — swayed the outcome. Delegates voted, 329-87 (with three abstentions), to refer the proposal.
After the Convention, Fry told the Management Council that he hopes to bring a related proposal before delegates again next year, and pledged to make it a top priority during his term as Presidents Council chair.
Redshirting
Even during a Convention noteworthy for decisive votes — no prevailing side attracted less than 58 percent approval on a proposal — the rejection by 80 percent of voting institutions of a renewed effort to extend Division III’s ban on redshirting to student-athletes who transfer from another division or association must have taken at least a few observers by surprise.
Last year, the same proposal was defeated by three votes, despite support from the Presidents Council. This year, however, the Presidents Council was convinced it should oppose Proposal No. 7 as impractical to monitor and unfair to student-athletes unfamiliar with Division III rules, and this time the membership overwhelmingly agreed with that stance, rejecting the proposal by a 336-82 vote (with five abstentions).
The membership, however, parted company from the Presidents Council on another proposal that had been linked to the ongoing redshirting debate, though its sponsors — including the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference — objected to that characterization.
Delegates approved Proposal No. 8, 319-100 (with five abstentions), thus giving student-athletes an opportunity to practice throughout the nontraditional season without losing a season of participation, and eliminating an inequity between fall and spring sports.
Richard Wells, president of the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, told delegates that Proposal No. 8 should be viewed as an effort to fix an “unintended inequity” stemming from adoption of legislation in 2004 eliminating redshirting.
“It’s been suggested by some that this modification represents a dilution of the reform package that was adopted in 2004,” he said, after telling delegates that his conference unanimously supported the redshirting ban that year. “To the contrary, the proposal principally signifies our recognition that the legislation that was originally adopted requires modification, to ensure every student-athlete is treated equitably under the application of this rule, regardless of whether they are spring or fall sport participants.”
However, they decisively settled another lingering question — whether current legislation that generally prohibits redshirting but permits some situational exceptions should be tightened even further.
Faced with a proposal originating from the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee to limit rather than eliminate use of male practice players, delegates responded to arguments that more information is needed before making a decision and referred the proposal to the Division III Management Council.
It was the first attempt in any NCAA division to deal legislatively with the contentious issue of whether it is appropriate to pair women’s teams against male practice players — and whether doing so deprives some women of competitive opportunities.
And delegates seemed to decide that Division III is too far ahead of the other divisions in making that determination, voting 359-62 (with three abstentions) to ask the Division III Management Council to collect more data about how widely males are used in practices by women’s teams and how they are employed.
After the Convention, the Management Council requested that Division III schools be included in upcoming surveys commissioned by Divisions I and II to determine the extent of use of male practice players. The Council asked that questions be included in the surveys to gauge institutions’ philosophical stance on the appropriateness of using males in practice situations.
The drumbeat to table Proposal No. 6 began before the Convention and was voiced January 7 during the Division III issues forum by Kathy DeBoer, executive director of the American Volleyball Coaches Association, who said more study is needed around a topic that has been “very, very high on emotion and very, very low on data.”
SAAC representatives did not challenge DeBoer’s assertion during the forum, nor similar sentiments expressed a day later during the business session as it became clear that delegates were moving toward referral of the question.
However, representatives of the group said before the business session that SAAC based its proposal on feedback gathered from student-athletes across Division III during the past 1 ½ years. They believe the proposal — which would have limited use of male practice players to one practice per week during the traditional season and permitted use of no more than one half the number of players required to field a starting women’s team — struck an appropriate balance between ensuring quality practices for teams with depleted squads and preserving participation opportunities for women.
The male practice player question wasn’t the only controversy whose resolution was deferred to another day.
Delegates also voted to refer to the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports a proposal that would have required the presence of at least one person certified in first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and use of an automatic external defibrillator (AED) — and familiar with emergency-plan activation policies — at all competitions and at required practices and strength and conditioning sessions involving student-athletes.
Delgates raised a number of questions during debate of Proposal No. 2 about situations in which the legislation might apply, as well as concerns about the practicality of covering sports such as cross country, golf and rowing where participants compete at far-flung or multiple sites, and the cost of certifying personnel in CPR and AED use.
Not even a passionate plea from Division III Presidents Council Vice Chair John Fry — who told delegates, “I don’t want to read any more stories about the untimely and unnecessary deaths of students,” and said it would be better to adopt the requirement first and then fix any unintended consequences — swayed the outcome. Delegates voted, 329-87 (with three abstentions), to refer the proposal.
After the Convention, Fry told the Management Council that he hopes to bring a related proposal before delegates again next year, and pledged to make it a top priority during his term as Presidents Council chair.
Redshirting
Even during a Convention noteworthy for decisive votes — no prevailing side attracted less than 58 percent approval on a proposal — the rejection by 80 percent of voting institutions of a renewed effort to extend Division III’s ban on redshirting to student-athletes who transfer from another division or association must have taken at least a few observers by surprise.
Last year, the same proposal was defeated by three votes, despite support from the Presidents Council. This year, however, the Presidents Council was convinced it should oppose Proposal No. 7 as impractical to monitor and unfair to student-athletes unfamiliar with Division III rules, and this time the membership overwhelmingly agreed with that stance, rejecting the proposal by a 336-82 vote (with five abstentions).
The membership, however, parted company from the Presidents Council on another proposal that had been linked to the ongoing redshirting debate, though its sponsors — including the Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference — objected to that characterization.
Delegates approved Proposal No. 8, 319-100 (with five abstentions), thus giving student-athletes an opportunity to practice throughout the nontraditional season without losing a season of participation, and eliminating an inequity between fall and spring sports.
Richard Wells, president of the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, told delegates that Proposal No. 8 should be viewed as an effort to fix an “unintended inequity” stemming from adoption of legislation in 2004 eliminating redshirting.
“It’s been suggested by some that this modification represents a dilution of the reform package that was adopted in 2004,” he said, after telling delegates that his conference unanimously supported the redshirting ban that year. “To the contrary, the proposal principally signifies our recognition that the legislation that was originally adopted requires modification, to ensure every student-athlete is treated equitably under the application of this rule, regardless of whether they are spring or fall sport participants.”
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy