The Division II Legislation Committee joined the discussion about playing and practice seasons in earnest at its March 23-24 meeting in Indianapolis, identifying preseason periods, the length of the regular season and the maximum number of contests as areas in which efficiencies could be gained to support the division’s strategic-positioning platform.

The discussion emerged from a Division II Presidents Council request for the Legislation and Championships Committees to lead a division-wide consideration of whether policies regarding playing and practice seasons reflect the attributes purported in the division’s identity campaign.

The review also coincides with a desire from presidents, athletics directors and commissioners to relieve stress on institutional budgets by finding administrative efficiencies and better business practices in conducting both regular-season and postseason competition (particularly related to travel costs).

The Division II Championships Committee started the discussion at its February meeting with championships-specific concepts. Now it was the Legislation Committee’s turn to focus on preseason and regular-season policies and procedures.

Committee members seemed comfortable considering reductions in the maximum number of contests in all sports, though they emphasized that a one-size-fits-all approach (for example, a 10 percent reduction across the board) would not be appropriate. However, they agreed that a 10 percent benchmark might represent a good starting point for a sport-by-sport review. They also liked the idea of amending the tournament exception in softball, which would essentially change countable contests to actual games played rather than dates of competition.

The committee also warmed to the notion of moving the preseason, particularly for fall sports, to as much as one week later, which would ease the financial burden on institutions for housing and feeding fall-sport athletes. Members said, though, that to gain the desired efficiencies from such a move, the length of the regular season would likely have to be reduced (along with a reduction in games). In other words, the return on moving the preseason back might be compromised by simply moving the entire season (including the championship) back. Committee members said they were not interested in compressing the same number of games into a shorter season.

Daily calendars for preseason practice also would have to be adjusted under a revised preseason format to account for fewer days with classes not in session. The committee wasn’t interested in compromising student-athlete health and safety by setting forth a scenario in which coaches would try to cram practice time into fewer class-free days.

The Legislation Committee also brainstormed about other concepts, such as adjusting the nontraditional segment in some or all sports, though members were not as keen on that idea. They also ran hot and cold on eliminating or at least reducing the number of exempted contests, such as alumni games or exhibition games – particularly those in basketball against Division I schools.

Some see alumni contests, for example, as outside the targeted behavior change since they are almost always are on campus and involve no missed class time. “They create good will and are often fund-raising opportunities,” one member said. Similarly, the basketball exemptions against Division I schools often are regional in nature and afford revenue opportunities for Division II teams.

Ultimately, the committee thought its best chance at meaningful change was with what members called “slight reductions” on a sport-by-sport basis and with a rethinking of the preseason period, at least in fall sports.

“The charge is to ensure that our behavior aligns with what our strategic position says we are,” said Grand Valley State Athletics Director Tim Selgo, who as Management Council chair is an ex officio member of the Legislation Committee. “It’s also a prudent time for such a review, given the way the economic climate has affected intercollegiate athletics budgets in all three NCAA divisions.

“We need to figure out a way to reduce costs and missed class time. The options are a reduction in the number of contests and/or playing seasons. We could do a slight reduction in each, which cumulatively would result in a meaningful reduction that would accomplish the task before us without having a dramatic effect on student-athletes and coaches.”

Input from the Legislation and Championships Committees will be forwarded to the Management and Presidents Councils for review in April. Both committees will meet again in June to share additional feedback before submitting recommendations to the Councils this summer that would then become legislative proposals for the January Convention.