Division II’s Life in the Balance package for the 2010 Convention recently gained support from representatives of the very constituency the proposals affect most: student-athletes.

The Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee voted to support three of the four proposals and take no position on the other. The 26-member panel supported contest reductions in basketball, baseball, softball and golf and a seven-day dead period during the winter holiday break.

But even the SAAC’s “no position” on a proposal to delay reporting dates for fall-sport student-athletes and shorten seasons and reduce games in several fall sports was not necessarily a sign of opposition. Rather, it was more of a compromise, according to SAAC chair and Angelo State baseball student-athlete Christopher Odom.

Odom said the SAAC’s recent meeting was particularly challenging since members had heard from peers who were uncomfortable with fewer contests.

“There was a lot of opposition from student-athletes who not only resisted the game cuts in these initial proposals but were concerned that there were more on the way,” Odom said, referring to the fact that the Life in the Balance review will extend into next year.

The national SAAC, which solicits input on legislation from conference and campus SAACs, found the opposition particularly strident on the fall-sports proposal, which is why the Division II SAAC took no position. That doesn’t mean, though, that Division II SAAC members won’t voice their support of all four measures on the Convention floor.

Odom said that’s because the national SAAC had a unique advantage of direct dialogue with the Management and Presidents Councils on the bigger picture, which helped SAAC members realize that Life in the Balance was more than about cutting games.

“The bigger picture is the overall identity of the division that these proposals are intended to protect, and finding the right balance among academics, athletics and social life,” Odom said.

Odom said SAAC members had to work hard initially to see that bigger picture. To be sure, he said, few student-athletes would say they want to compete less.

“Student-athletes want to compete,” he said. “That’s one of the main reasons you continue your athletics pursuits at the collegiate level. It’s a tough internal battle for student-athletes to say we love our sport and we don’t want to play it as much. We have only four years to play anyway before it’s back to rec leagues and church leagues for most of us. So it’s natural for there to be mixed feelings.

“But we understand the direction that the leadership in Division II is trying to take.”

A discussion of balance

Among the internal struggles for SAAC members was the acknowledgement that student-athletes tend to perform better academically than their student-body counterparts despite the time demands athletics requires. Student-athletes know what they’re getting into when they pursue college sports, they say, and if they can handle the time management, why should they be penalized with fewer games?

But Odom said others pointed out that balancing academics and athletics under the current model often comes at a price. Many student-athletes, he said, don’t even start hitting the books until late at night and are forced to study into the early morning hours because of practices and games during the daytime. While student-athletes are skilled in time management, Odom said, those skills are often tested to the extreme in the current system.

Odom also said some student-athletes confuse the balance being sought through the proposals as being only between academics and athletics.

“Student-athletes take pride in being able to balance time demands between academic and athletics priorities,” he said, “but there’s more to it than that. It’s also about experiencing all the campus has to offer.”

That’s where the shift started to occur toward supporting what the Division II presidents are trying to accomplish with the Life in the Balance package, Odom said.

“It’s not balance if you’re having to stay up until 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning four nights a week to keep up with the school work that you’re not able to do during the day because of practice or games,” he said. “The purpose of college is to make for a more well-rounded person.”

Thus, the SAAC agreed with the overall intent of the package, even though members took no position on one of the proposals. Odom said the group wants to show that it is a representative voice for student-athletes, but also that it understands the bigger picture.

Division II Presidents Council chair Stephen Jordan of Metro State appreciated how the Division II SAAC worked through its discussion.

“As we discussed during our most recent Presidents Council meeting, these proposals are not an indictment on the academic performance of our student-athletes,” Jordan said. “In fact, the most recent Division II graduation rates we released to the national media gave me a platform to exclaim how proud the Presidents Council is of the job our student-athletes do in the classroom.

“No, this effort is about making sure the total collegiate experience we describe in our platform – community work, academics, high level competition, extra-curricular activities – can all be achieved in a tremendously busy student schedule. This is about making sure that our division halts years of season creep in numerous sports and that we demonstrate some fiscal restraint to our campuses and communities that are wondering how athletics will contribute to the sacrifices we are asking everyone in higher education to make.”