DIII committee voices opposition to football proposal

The Division III Interpretations and Legislation Committee voted against membership legislation that would reshape football's offseason.

Posted on 10/2/14 10:10 AM

For the second consecutive fall, football was at the heart of one of the Division III Interpretation and Legislation Committee’s discussions. And once again, the committee voted to oppose legislation that would ease restrictions on football workouts held in the spring, among other actions.  

The committee convened last week in Indianapolis and reviewed  legislation that will be considered at the upcoming NCAA Convention.

A group of 22 schools has proposed reshaping the sport’s nontraditional segment – for Division III football, a five-week period in the spring currently used for skill instruction – calling for limits on contact and equipment to be eased significantly. Currently, only hand shields are allowed during the spring sessions, which are designated as noncontact conditioning and instructional periods. The proposal, though, calls for as many as seven days of full-pad practice, with live tackling allowed on three days and two days devoted to full 11-on-11 scrimmages.

The legislation’s intent, its backers say, is to provide football players with skill instruction and development equivalent to that received by athletes in other sports that are out of season. They also note the increase in contact is a necessity because it gives student-athletes more time to learn safe tackling techniques.  

“This would provide a better way to teach sport skills and safe play along with preparing student-athletes for the upcoming season,” Amy Carlton, commissioner of the American Southwest Conference, wrote in a recent editorial in Champion magazine. “Now is the time for all Division III stakeholders – coaches, campus administrators, conferences and student-athletes – to have an open and frank discussion to assess football and its spring playing and practice season activities.”

During the interpretations and legislation committee discussion, several committee members worried that a more intensive nontraditional segment in football would interfere in the lives of student-athletes who take part in other sports in the spring, such as track and field. It might force them to choose one sport over the other, committee members warned.

Additionally, easing restrictions on football in the spring could tax athletic training staffs that are already stretched thin. They likely would have to monitor full-contact practices in the spring instead of attending practices or competitions for other sports, the committee argued. Because of those factors, the committee voted to oppose the legislation. Both the Division III Management and Presidents councils will have chances to weigh in on the legislation before January, when it reaches the floor of the NCAA Convention.

“We were in agreement – we think it would not be prudent,” said Jason Fein, chair of the interpretation and legislation committee and athletics director at Drew University. “But the membership will have a say. It will be an interesting year.”

 Other actions: