DIII football proposal sparks debate, ultimately defeated

Three Recruiting Working Group proposals among those adopted by membership

Posted on 1/18/15 6:26 AM

_JTT1712.JPG

Spring football in Division III will remain a no-contact segment.  

A proposal that would have permitted contact during the sport’s spring strength and conditioning segment was narrowly defeated on Saturday, with 51.8 percent of members voting against the proposalafter the lengthiest debate of the 2015 Division III Business Session

Proponents of the proposal stressed on the Convention floor the importance of contact to build proper skill and techniqueBut several college presidents and other administrators warned against the strains a more robust spring football segment might place on facilities and athletic training staffs. They also raised safety concerns

Later in the business session, a member who had originally voted against the proposal made a motion for reconsideration. SAAC also voiced support for reconsideration and NCAA Chief Medical Officer Brian Hainline addressed the room regarding research on the positive and negative outcomes of allowing more contact in football practices.

The reconsideration vote, though, ultimately failed, garnering just shy of 49 percent of membership support.  

Recruiting rule changes

Three of the four proposals crafted by the Division III Recruiting Working Group were adopted on Saturday. An additional recruiting proposal was also approved by the membership

The working group proposals which passed include

The lone working group proposal that was defeated would have permitted on-campus evaluations of prospective students. Prior to the vote, the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee voiced reservations with the proposalNearly 80 percent of delegates voted in opposition. 

The only piece of recruiting legislation that did not originate from the working group – permitting recruits to make an official campus visit as of Jan. 1 of their junior year – was also adopted after 91 percent of delegates voted in favor of the proposal. 

Other legislative actions