National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Insist on control, rather than rules - Letter to the editor
The NCAA
|
The NCAA
I was pleasantly surprised that legislation to limit the use of male practice players in Division III was put on hold at our recent Convention in Orlando. It became clear in the days leading up to the vote that this item would not be moved forward. My conference (the Massachusetts State College Athletic Conference) had also proposed an alternative amendment and we were hoping to avoid a vote, too. Why did no one want a vote? As stated on the Convention floor, in my 26 years of coaching women’s basketball and 2,000 practices, we have used males about eight times. The use of male practice players is not a problem in Division III.
The adoption of this legislation would have been at best premature and more likely unnecessary. Our division needs to use the legislative process only when necessary and not to solve special interests, regional, specific sport, or Division I or II problems. I agree with Michael Miranda, outgoing Management Council chair, when he states in the December 2006 Division III Newsletter: “While the divisional legislative process is available to all, it need not be the first course of action.”
If a problem exists in another division, then that is where it should be handled. Conference commissioners and directors of athletics at all levels who have an issue with male practice players should act on their own rather than turn to the legislative process. “Institutional control” should actually be practiced. We all should step up and make decisions that are best for our own programs.
My management team has made some tough decisions in the last few years and several of my coaches have vehemently disagreed. Examples are: Our first contest date for fall sports is now the first Friday after the first day of classes, our winter start date is mid-February, our nontraditional seasons are shorter than allowed under NCAA limits, and we no longer declare for ECAC team championships. These actions are in the best interests of Salem State College and we do not need nor seek formal support from our peers.
Coaches constantly offer the excuse that “everyone else is doing it” and administrators often buckle under the pressure. We need to do what is best for our own institutions and conferences, and if that means greater limits, then fine. Institutions in all divisions should determine on their own if the use of male practice players is detrimental to female participants and act accordingly.
I find this issue similar to the so-called “redshirting” legislation passed a couple of years ago. Where does significant “redshirting” exist in Division III? I do not see much of it in New England. I have heard that Midwest football may be the culprit, but I have seen no supportive data. The NCAA survey taken before proposing “redshirting” legislation showed that a minority of members thought legislation was necessary. No matter, someone pushed it to the table and to a vote. (Likewise, a prior Convention vote showed strong opposition to separating Division III, but it appears legislation is pending.)
Faulty legislation sometimes passes when no one has a problem with the issue and votes are cast one way or another with little thought. The result from banning “redshirting” is now those students who may be sitting out game competition for reasons other than true “redshirting” can no longer stay connected with a sport they love. We saw a small reversal of this trend in the passing of Proposal No. 8 in Orlando, and hopefully more changes will follow. Then, those who have a “redshirting” problem can handle it on their own campus or in their own conference with their own methods.
Finally, I urge you to use the legislative process when necessary. Proposing alternative legislation does not make you, your institution or your conference a “renegade” as some members have been branded in the past. Rather, it shows your concern about your own institution, and shouldn’t that be our first priority?
Tim Shea
Director of athletics and women’s basketball coach
Salem State College
Editor’s note: The 2003 Future of Division III survey asked respondents whether they strongly support, support or somewhat support — or strongly oppose, oppose, or somewhat oppose — the following statement addressing “redshirting”: “A student-athlete would be limited to four seasons of participation. Practice or competition during a season would count as one of four available seasons.” Eight percent somewhat supported, 19 percent supported and 21 percent strongly supported the statement (totaling 48 percent of respondents); 9 percent somewhat opposed, 24 percent opposed and 19 percent strongly opposed the statement (52 percent of respondents). Division III delegates approved the “season of participation” proposal at the 2004 Convention by a 249-163 vote (with one abstention).
The adoption of this legislation would have been at best premature and more likely unnecessary. Our division needs to use the legislative process only when necessary and not to solve special interests, regional, specific sport, or Division I or II problems. I agree with Michael Miranda, outgoing Management Council chair, when he states in the December 2006 Division III Newsletter: “While the divisional legislative process is available to all, it need not be the first course of action.”
If a problem exists in another division, then that is where it should be handled. Conference commissioners and directors of athletics at all levels who have an issue with male practice players should act on their own rather than turn to the legislative process. “Institutional control” should actually be practiced. We all should step up and make decisions that are best for our own programs.
My management team has made some tough decisions in the last few years and several of my coaches have vehemently disagreed. Examples are: Our first contest date for fall sports is now the first Friday after the first day of classes, our winter start date is mid-February, our nontraditional seasons are shorter than allowed under NCAA limits, and we no longer declare for ECAC team championships. These actions are in the best interests of Salem State College and we do not need nor seek formal support from our peers.
Coaches constantly offer the excuse that “everyone else is doing it” and administrators often buckle under the pressure. We need to do what is best for our own institutions and conferences, and if that means greater limits, then fine. Institutions in all divisions should determine on their own if the use of male practice players is detrimental to female participants and act accordingly.
I find this issue similar to the so-called “redshirting” legislation passed a couple of years ago. Where does significant “redshirting” exist in Division III? I do not see much of it in New England. I have heard that Midwest football may be the culprit, but I have seen no supportive data. The NCAA survey taken before proposing “redshirting” legislation showed that a minority of members thought legislation was necessary. No matter, someone pushed it to the table and to a vote. (Likewise, a prior Convention vote showed strong opposition to separating Division III, but it appears legislation is pending.)
Faulty legislation sometimes passes when no one has a problem with the issue and votes are cast one way or another with little thought. The result from banning “redshirting” is now those students who may be sitting out game competition for reasons other than true “redshirting” can no longer stay connected with a sport they love. We saw a small reversal of this trend in the passing of Proposal No. 8 in Orlando, and hopefully more changes will follow. Then, those who have a “redshirting” problem can handle it on their own campus or in their own conference with their own methods.
Finally, I urge you to use the legislative process when necessary. Proposing alternative legislation does not make you, your institution or your conference a “renegade” as some members have been branded in the past. Rather, it shows your concern about your own institution, and shouldn’t that be our first priority?
Tim Shea
Director of athletics and women’s basketball coach
Salem State College
Editor’s note: The 2003 Future of Division III survey asked respondents whether they strongly support, support or somewhat support — or strongly oppose, oppose, or somewhat oppose — the following statement addressing “redshirting”: “A student-athlete would be limited to four seasons of participation. Practice or competition during a season would count as one of four available seasons.” Eight percent somewhat supported, 19 percent supported and 21 percent strongly supported the statement (totaling 48 percent of respondents); 9 percent somewhat opposed, 24 percent opposed and 19 percent strongly opposed the statement (52 percent of respondents). Division III delegates approved the “season of participation” proposal at the 2004 Convention by a 249-163 vote (with one abstention).
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy