DENVER – The Division II Management Council spent the weekend discussing concepts to reduce the number of contests in eight sports with an important stakeholder: student-athletes.

A breakout session during the 13th annual Management Council/Student-Athlete Advisory Committee summit focused on the “Life in the Balance” concepts to reduce the lengths of seasons and cut contests in men’s and women’s soccer (from 20 to 18), field hockey (from 20 to 18), women’s volleyball (from 28 to 26), baseball (from 56 to 50), men’s and women’s golf (from 24 dates to 21) and softball (eliminating the tournament exception).

Those concepts are part of a package that includes a later reporting date for fall-sport student-athletes (to reduce the lodging and meal burden on institutions before classes are in session) and a seven-day “dead period” in the winter during which no countable athletically related activities can take place. The Council will begin a targeted discussion of the package at meetings Monday and Tuesday.

Over the weekend, a few SAAC members wanted more rationale about why seasons in their sports were being reduced. Though they understood the higher purpose of the initiative to align athletics policies with the division’s strategic-positioning platform, they noted that their opportunity to participate in games was the culmination of much hard work in the off-season and preseason practice – the best part of their experience on the athletics side.

What Management Council members tried to articulate in response was the need for the division to act strategically now to keep it from paying later.

“While ‘Life in the Balance’ is more about alignment than economics, it’s impossible to deny the impact our economy is having on all of higher education, not just athletics,” said Division II Presidents Council Chair Stephen Jordan, who visited from his nearby Metropolitan State campus to provide a presidential perspective on what has become the division’s main course on this year’s legislative menu. “And left unaddressed, it’s quite possible that presidents and athletics directors would be faced with some uncomfortable decisions about sports sponsorship in the near future.”

That observation resonated with most SAAC members, though a few in some fall sports that don’t pose many academic or economic issues still wondered why their sports would be affected.

Jordan said while he admired student-athletes’ passion for their games – noting in fact that passion is among the division’s attributes – he said the balance between time spent in and out of athletics parallels Division II’s purpose. And while it may appear almost petty to trim a couple of contests from a handful of sports, Jordan said the collective action could make a big difference to an institution’s bottom line.

To one student-athlete who asked, “But what are we really saving?” Jordan said: “First of all,” you save a lot of the up-front costs with food and lodging with the later reporting date. And each game you don’t play saves operating costs (officials and travel, for example). That might not be much by sport, but you multiply those two contests by several sports and collectively, you have a significant savings.”

Digging for details

Once the philosophical debate leveled out, SAAC members were able to provide some valuable feedback about some of the details.

A discussion emerged, for example, about the proposed reporting date for football that would count back 21 days from the first permissible playing date (the first Thursday before September 6) or seven days before the first day of classes (whichever is earlier).

Several summit participants wondered if it would be better to count back from the institution’s first actual game date rather than the proposed Thursday marker, since most teams play their openers on Saturday (which would provide for a 23-day preseason window rather than 21).

Previous governance groups that reviewed the concept liked the uniformity of the Thursday option, but the summit discussion left the matter open for further study.

Other queries and comments regarding the Life in the Balance concepts included:

• The seven-day dead period during the winter break is being positively received by institutional staff who would appreciate the time away from the daily grind.
• The reduction in games would have the unintended consequence of limiting student-athletes’ ability to break records.
• Game cuts also might have the undesired outcome of reducing the number of in-region nonconference games since they likely would be the first to go. If so, how would that affect selection committees that have emphasized those in-region contests for postseason selection purposes?
• Fewer games in Division II could produce a recruiting advantage for Divisions I and III.
• The dead period is drafted to apply only to winter sports, but it may need to be expanded to cover fall and spring sports as well.
• The dead period would interrupt the team bonding that is critical to a successful season.
• Shorter seasons and fewer games might actually help retain female coaches from a work/life balance perspective.
• Eliminating the tournament exception in softball might actually increase costs if schools schedule more single games.
• The later start time for fall sports would provide student-athletes more time in the summer.

Council and SAAC members also looked further out in the Life in the Balance effort since presidents have made it clear that the proposals on the table this year are merely the beginning of a much broader review.

Concepts under consideration include additional contest reductions, significant changes in the non-championship segment in various sports, and possibly reducing or even eliminating annual and discretionary exempted contests.