Division III basketball dodged a bullet on redshirts this afternoon at the annual NCAA Convention in Indianapolis. A more restrictive redshirt proposal came three votes from passing.
Two years ago, Division III members voted to eliminate the practice of redshirting except for medical reasons. While previously granted redshirts would be honored, no new ones would be awarded. The legislation was part of a package of measures designed to provide more common ground among the 425-plus schools in Division III, some of which came relatively recently from the NAIA and brought with them values that werem’t practiced by the majority of schools.
That 2004 measure passed with more than 60% approval.
Today, however, a proposal was considered that would not honor redshirts granted at other levels of college athletics. Currently, if a student-athlete redshirted outside of Division III and then transferred to a Division III school, he or she would not lose that year of eligibility.
The Presidents Council supported this measure. The membership, thankfully, did not, defeating it 203-199 with four abstentions, according to a source on the convention floor. A swing of three ‘nay’ votes would have carried the proposal and made it effective this August.
In the Presidents Council’s position statement summary, it said, “the student-athlete becomes accountable for the decision to ‘redshirt’ prior to attending a Division III institution.”
That’s all well and good, but shows a distinct lack of knowledge of what athletics at other levels is about. If you’re at a scholarship level and the coach says you’re redshirting, that’s it, end of discussion. Why in the world would we want to punish a kid for seeing the light and coming to Division III, where the student-athlete can be serious about academics and treat sports as something other than a job?
It’s great that Division III is here to rescue kids from the cannon fodder that Division I athletics can be, but instead, this proposal would have pushed kids away from some of the finest institutions in America and towards schools at other levels inside and outside the NCAA.
The Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference already uses this model and the Midwest Conference sponsored the legislation. If that’s what they want to do, that’s their choice. But don’t punish a teenager for what a D-I coach foists on them. That isn’t right.
Summarizing other news from the votes today, repealing the 2004 redshirt restrictions failed by a vote of 277-128-1. A proposal to increase to 14 (based on enrollment) the number of sports a D-III school is required to offer failed 371-37-3. A proposal to increase it to 12 for schools with enrollment of greater than 1,000 passed, 233-170-5, effective Aug. 1, 2010.
The NCAA Tournament size was capped at 64 for basketball. Conferences that complete a self-study survey can remain eligible for an automatic bid starting Aug. 1, 2008, even if temporarily falling below seven schools sponsoring a sport. A later proposal said that those conferences which fall below four “core” institutions would not remain eligible to retain automatic bids.
I will looking forward to Pat’s analysis of the convention when he has time! Thanks for the timely report.
The NCAA Tournament size was capped at 64 for basketball.
Is this for DIII only? (Would that we had 64 teams!) Or does this mean the end of the ridiculous “play-in game” in the men’s DI tourney?
A proposal to increase to 14 (based on enrollment) the number of sports a D-III school is required to offer failed 371-37-3.
I’m surprised a measure with so little support (10-to-1 against) can even reach the floor. This makes me wonder about how these meetings are structured. (Rhetorical comment; not looking for a response here.)
That’s for D-III only. Capped at 64 means when it gets to 64 it will not get any larger.
My understanding is the proposal about 14 and about 12 were discussed more or less simultaneously, and I suppose the 14 had to be voted on before 12 could be (that is the order in the legislation list on the NCAA’s site). It might have had more support than this. There were also some proposals that had (presumably) so little support that they were withdrawn.
Well-written post, Pat. I agree with you completely about the proposed redshirt legislation.
An interview in the Daily News Record with President Stone, the hyperlink to which is couteously posted by Mizzou Mafia on the Future of D3 Message Board, says that the Restrictive Redshirt proposal passed. Let’s hope that Pat’s source on the convention floor was not mistakened!
Interesting.
I cannot load the NCAA’s Web site at the moiment, which might have yesterday’s official voting results.
I have been told that the DNR report is incorrect on the result of the vote regarding restrictive redshirts. I can’t say more without outing my source but the explanation I received leaves me confident our report is accurate.
Still will wait for the NCAA site to load for the final word but I’m alright with it for now.
Thanks, Pat! I have trouble loading the voting results, too.
http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/01/10/ncaa
Rejecting a Presidents Council recommendation, however, the membership voted 203-199 not to subtract a year of eligibility from an athlete who redshirted in Division I or II and then transferred to Division III. “I’m not too upset about that one,” (Bridgewater, Va., president Philip) Stone said. “Even people who voted for the redshirt ban were sympathetic in this case.”
Thanks to Coach C for picking that out.
The proposal to raise the DIII minimums to 14 sports was also based on a sliding scale tied into the size of the enrollment of an institution. It did not address Title IX issues. The proposal to get to 12 sports said that there would be minimums of 6 male/mixed sports and 6 women’s sports. This is an increase of two sports over the current minimum and was judged to be a more feasible plan.
The proposal to count a DI, DII, or NAIA redshirt year as a season of competition was defeated closely. It was thought that it would be brought up again in the Window of Reconsideration period in the afternoon but it was not. While the Presidents’ and Management Councils are important groups within the Division, their recommendations are not always followed.
Although there are few of them left, how does the minimum sports requirement affect the all-men and all women institutions in DIII?
The requirement of the five (six next year) sport minimum does not extend to the gender not in place at those institutions.