by Gary Brown, The NCAA News (
www.ncaa.org)
Read Part I online: DII in Phase II: Quest for Balance continues
Read Part II online: Exempted contests part of DII Balance Phase II review Coming in Part 3: A look at the nonchampionship segment. Share your feedback, ideas and thoughts for Life in the Balance Phase II by sending an e-mail to
lifeinthebalance@ncaa.org. That e-mail is monitored for feedback and ideas only and is not meant for questions requesting a response.
Excerpts from Part 1: Phase II of the Division II Life in the Balance initiative
Now that Division II has approved strategic reductions in the playing season and game limits in 10 sports, the Presidents Council is following through on its promise to make the pursuit of balance for student-athletes an ongoing concern.
Phase II of the division’s “Life in the Balance” initiative to align Division II athletics competition policies with an attribute-based strategic-positioning platform is already under way. Though no proposals have been developed for the 2011 Convention,
the Presidents Council has identified areas it wants the governance structure and the membership to consider.They are:
• The overall length of the playing season and maximum number of contests or dates of competition for sports that were not affected in Phase I.
• The number of annual and discretionary exemptions in various sports (for example, alumni meets, conference championships, scrimmages, exhibition games, preseason tournament games).
• The structure of the nonchampionship segment in all sports (that is, the period of athletically related activities that is outside of a given sport’s traditional playing season).
• The “20/8-hour rule,” regarding limits on athletically related activities and skill instruction in and out of season.
Tdshe Presidents Council has charged the Division II Legislation and Championships Committees with overseeing the development of legislative proposals for the 2011 Convention. As was also the case with Phase I, the Phase II effort will rely on data, input from all constituents and a well-vetted approach throughout the governance structure to align athletics behavior with the identity Division II has carved out for itself in its strategic platform.
As for the first area of review, the Division II Legislation Committee began looking at maximum contest limits in other sports even before the votes on Phase I at the 2010 Convention. In November 2009, the committee narrowed the discussion for future in-person meetings by deciding what was
off the table.
Thus, sports
not being reviewed are:
•
Emerging sports for women, such as rugby, equestrian and sand volleyball. Because the intent of the emerging-sports legislation is to provide additional athletics opportunities for female student-athletes, the committee believes contest reductions are not appropriate at this time.
•
National Collegiate Championship sports. The committee also exempted from review those sports in which Division II sponsoring schools compete against institutions that affiliate the bulk of their athletics program in other divisions. Three of these sports are men’s sports (gymnastics, volleyball, water polo), six are women’s (bowling, gymnastics, ice hockey, water polo) and three are men’s and women sports (fencing, rifle, skiing). The committee cited competitive-equity concerns as the reason for leaving them out of the Phase II review.
•
Other sports such as swimming and diving, lacrosse, wrestling, and indoor and outdoor track and field. The committee determined that these sports already fit well in their season windows and do not face issues with many midweek contests or missed class time. In addition, the Division II Championships Committee just last week approved a recommendation from the swimming and diving committee to cap the championships field at 365 competitors (160 men and 205 women) beginning in 2011.
The Legislation Committee did agree, however, to look at the number of contest dates in two championship sports – football and tennis. Further, because of feedback received at the 2010 Convention from the Division II Presidents Council, Management Council and Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, the overall length of the season for winter sports (for example, swimming and diving and basketball) will be reviewed.
To facilitate that review, the committee has asked for information (to be obtained through the score-reporting system in championships) on the number of Thursday night games in football and the number of institutions that participated in 10 games versus the maximum of 11 games over the last three years (2007, 2008 and 2009).
The purpose of gathering those data, according to Division II Vice President Mike Racy, may be more quantitative than qualitative. Division II has carved out Thursday as its window for televised games in the broadcast agreement with CBS College Sports, and campuses that have hosted those contests report increased attendance and exposure for their programs.
“At the same time,” Racy said, “it’s important to know how many institutions are deciding to play on Thursday even when those games are not televised, so we can answer questions about missed class time and any desire to play more weekday games.”
The Legislation Committee also wants a three-year report on the average number of dates of competition in tennis. Because tennis faces similar challenges as golf relating to facilities, weather and travel, the committee wants to examine how many dates of competition that schools sponsoring tennis choose to play.
Bob Boerigter, director of athletics at Northwest Missouri State and a member of the Championships Committee, said, “Review and reduction aren’t synonymous. Just because we’re looking at data doesn’t mean it will lead to reductions. We’re looking at the data for Thursday games in football just to see how often it’s being done and its effect on missed class time.”
Boerigter and others also cited interest in curbing further use of weekdays to stage football games. Division I conferences, for example, have entered television agreements that put their games on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday nights. There’s no momentum to do that in Division II, Boerigter said.
The Division II Legislation Committee meets March 18-19 and will review feedback between now and then from committees and coaches associations and propose concepts that will go through further vetting before the Legislation and Championships Committees’ joint meeting in June.
That session is expected to produce legislative proposals that will enter a more formal review through the governance structure. Proposals that emerge from the Management and Presidents Councils in July and August will make their way to the 2011 Convention as the Phase II package.
Excerpts from Part 2: Exempted contests part of DII Balance Phase II review Of all the review areas in Phase II of the Life in the Balance initiative for the 2011 Convention, the array of annual and discretionary exemptions in Division II sports may be the most ripe for change.
First, what are “exempted” contests? There are two kinds. One is an “annual” exemption, which may include alumni meets, conference championships or fund-raising activities. Institutions have an unlimited number of such events at their disposal.
The other type of exemption is “discretionary,” which means a scrimmage or a contest against a non-Division II school. The basketball games many Division II teams play in the preseason against Division I schools are examples.
Teams may also exempt competition against Division II schools in Hawaii, Alaska and Puerto Rico, which is important since there are more Division II schools in those areas than any other division.
But the challenge is that each sport has its own list of exemptions that may be excluded from the maximum number of contests or dates of competition each year, though the Legislation Committee has narrowed its review only to those sports whose seasons conclude with a Division II championship (thus excluding National Collegiate Championship sports and emerging sports for women).
These exemptions also mean different things to different schools. Some generate significant revenue (such as the basketball games against Division I teams). Others foster regional relationships with schools that otherwise wouldn’t be on the schedule (and because of proximity are inexpensive to stage), while others maintain important ties with alumni and donors.
But while it’s apparent that a cookie-cutter approach might not work, many members appear to be open to cutting back on some of these contests.
“There’s at least some momentum to base a review on the value these events bring to the institution,” Division II Vice President Mike Racy said. “Eliminating the guarantee games in basketball, for example, might not be in the division’s best interests because they generate a good deal of revenue for the schools. Thus it’s easier to protect exemptions that align with Division II principles or provide benefits to the student-athletes and schools.
“But if there are ways to develop a list based on data that reveal contests of lesser value, then those areas might be where the proposals end up being targeted.”
The data Racy cited are being gathered through a questionnaire sent in mid-December asking member schools how they have used their exemptions over the last three years. The Legislation Committee will find all of that useful when it meets in March to begin developing concepts.
“Each of the exemptions was put in for a reason, such as the ones to help the schools in Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, so I’m interested in who uses them and for what purpose,” said Peach Belt Conference Associate Commissioner Diana Kling, who also is a member of the Legislation Committee. “That will drive how we prioritize our recommendations.”
Some people already are waving well-reasoned yellow flags. A few Championships Committee members at their meeting earlier this month cautioned against eliminating exemptions for foreign tours based on their educational value for student-athletes. Others – particularly members in the West regions – want to protect the exemptions for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico because of the value of those games to those regions. Alumni games also add value, some say – not so much with revenue but good will – and are worth keeping.
But other people see opportunities in the review.
For example, Division II sport committees in their postseason selection processes place a premium on in-region, nonconference games. In some regions, those games are hard to come by. Sonoma State Athletics Director and Championships Committee member Bill Fusco cited his region as a case study.
In basketball, the California Collegiate Athletic Association has 12 schools, meaning they play a 22-game conference schedule. With the Phase I proposal reducing the 27-game basketball season by one, that allows CCAA schools just four nonconference games. Meanwhile, the other leagues in the region – the Pac-West and the Great Northwest Athletic Conference, are composed of seven and nine members, respectively, meaning they have to add more nonconference games. Because the CCAA teams aren’t necessarily available, there’s not as much chance for in-region nonconference games for the other two leagues.
One idea being floated is to encourage in-region, nonconference games by offering them as an exemption. Some people think that might generate more in-region “Tip-Off” tournaments early in the season. Right now, the Disney Tip-Off Classics in Orlando and Anaheim are exempt, but they almost always involve out-of-region games that don’t do as much good for the selection committee.
Other ideas are more quid pro quo in that some members wouldn’t mind considering cuts in exemptions as long as the contests in the nonchampionship segment were left alone (the nonchampionship segment is another area of review in Phase II).
Another idea with support is to let institutions have more autonomy in choosing their exemptions. A concept that came close to being a proposal in Phase I was for basketball teams to choose among playing a combination of regular-season and exempted games. For example, teams could choose to play the full complement of regular-season games and no exemptions, or a one-for-one trade-off to accommodate up to three exemptions. That didn’t make the cut for Phase I, but it generated interest.
“To be sure, there are a number of ideas being discussed,” Racy said. “And that’s good, given that it’s only February. This is when the division needs to do its best thinking.”