Division III Convention Roll Call Vote Analysis
|
Future Survey |
Convention Vote |
||||||
|
|
Support |
Swing |
Oppose |
|
Yes |
No |
Abstain |
|
No consideration of aid in
award package. |
87 |
9 |
4 |
Proposal 55
– Prohibition of Athletics
Endowments |
98 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Aid Reporting |
64 |
23 |
13 |
Proposal 56
– Financial Aid Reporting |
85 |
14 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elimination of redshirting
– practice or playing during any season, traditional or
non-traditional, would count as a season of competition. |
40 |
17 |
43 |
Proposal 57
(as amended by 57-1) – Eliminate redshirting with an exception –
practice in non-traditional after missing traditional with approval. |
60 |
39 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compliance between athletics
recruiting and admissions. |
84 |
10 |
6 |
Proposal 58
– Compliance between athletics recruiting and admissions. |
95 |
5 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strengthen transfer contact
rule to preclude unsolicited contact. |
63 |
25 |
12 |
Proposal 59
– Transfer Self-Release
Policy |
53 |
46 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Establish specific start
and end dates of the traditional segment. |
69 |
31 |
10 |
Proposal 60
– Limit playing seasons to 18 weeks in the Fall and 19 in the Winter
and Spring. Additionally,
decrease contest limits by 10%. |
36 |
63 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ensure consistency between
playing season length and percentage of time spent on athletics. |
56 |
23 |
21 |
Proposal 60
– Limit playing seasons to 18 weeks in the Fall and 19 in the Winter
and Spring. Additionally,
decrease contest limits by 10%. |
36 |
63 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider further limitation
of nontraditional segment. |
44 |
26 |
30 |
Proposal 60
– Limit playing seasons to 18 weeks in the Fall and 19 in the Winter
and Spring. Additionally,
decrease contest limits by 10%. |
36 |
63 |
1 |
|
Future Survey |
Convention Vote |
||||||
|
|
Support |
Swing |
Oppose |
|
Yes |
No |
Abstain |
|
Establish specific start
and end dates of the traditional segment. |
69 |
31 |
10 |
Proposal 61
– Limit playing seasons to 18 weeks in the Fall and 19 in the Winter
and Spring. |
56 |
43 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ensure consistency between
playing season length and percentage of time spent on athletics. |
56 |
23 |
21 |
Proposal 61
– Limit playing seasons to 18 weeks in the Fall and 19 in the Winter
and Spring. |
56 |
43 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider further limitation
of nontraditional segment. |
44 |
26 |
30 |
Proposal 62
(as amended by 62-1) – Elimination of competition in the nontraditional
season with the exception of rowing. |
43 |
56 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider further limitation
of nontraditional segment. |
44 |
26 |
30 |
Proposal 63
– 16 day nontraditional season with 1 date of competition. |
52 |
47 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elimination of
multidivision classification. |
46 |
23 |
31 |
Proposal 65
– elimination of multidivision classification (Proposal 65-1 granting
waivers for the 8 schools providing aid had already been accepted). |
74 |
22 |
4 |
The Proposals
Proposal 56 –
Financial Aid Reporting Process
· 70% of those that opposed the reporting process according to the Future Survey voted in favor of the Proposal.
· 81% of those on the fence according to the Future Survey voted in favor of the Proposal.
· 10% of those that supported the reporting process on the Future Survey voted against the Proposal.
Proposal 57A – Elimination of Redshirts
· A little more than 1 out of 2 the largest, lowest cost institutions voted against the elimination of redshirts where approximately 2 out of 3 of the smallest, highest cost institutions voted for the elimination of redshirts.
· 41% of those that opposed the elimination of redshirts according to the Futures Survey voted in favor on the Proposal.
· 57% of those on the fence according to the Future Survey voted in favor of the Proposal.
· 15% of those that supported the option on the Future Survey voted against the Proposal.
Proposal 59 – Transfer Self-Release
The 7 point win on this proposal was a result of moving 7 percent of those who were on the fence or opposed to the more strict option on the Future Survey. A more lenient Proposal also resulted in a 50/50 split on the Proposal vote by those who originally supported the option on the survey.
Proposal 60 – 18/19 Week Playing Season Limit and a 10% Decrease
in Contests
· Support and opposition for this proposal can be found across institution types.
· Support and opposition for this proposal is split amongst those institutions that indicated support on the Future Survey for the modification of the playing season, establishment of specific start and end dates and establishment of reasonable contest limits.
Proposal 61 – 18/19 Week Playing Season Limit
· A little more than 1 out of 2 largest, lowest cost institutions voted against the 18/19 week playing season limits where approximately 2 out of 3 of the smallest, highest cost institutions voted for the 18/19 week playing season limits.
· 39% of those that supported a specific start and end date of the traditional segment voted against the proposal.
· 54% of those on the fence or in opposition to specific start and end dates voted in favor of the proposal.
Proposal 62A – Elimination of Competition in the Non-Traditional
Season
Approximately 2 out of 3 of the largest, lowest cost institutions voted against the elimination of competition in the non-traditional where a little more than 1 out of 2 of the smallest, highest cost institutions voted against the elimination of competition in the non-traditional.
Proposal 63 – 16 Day/1 Competition Limit in the Non-Traditional
Season
As opposed to Proposal 62A, which would have eliminated competition in the non-traditional season, the inclusion of one date of competition in Proposal 63 produced enough affirmative votes from the support, swing and opposition categories in the Future Survey to produce a 5 point win.
Proposal 65 – Elimination of Multidivision Classification
Those who voted in opposition to this proposal are distributed evenly across the support, swing, opposition categories in the Futures Survey.
Other Issues
Membership Subdivisions – 21% of the Future Survey respondents indicated support for membership subdivisions. It is in this segment that the strongest support for more restrictive playing and practice season rules can be found. Proposals 61 and 63 represent the less restrictive playing and practice season proposals where proposals 60 and 62 represent the more restrictive. Even those institutions that indicated support for membership subdivisions were split on support of proposals 60 and 62 while supporting proposals 61 and 63. Those institutions that oppose membership subdivisions were against proposals 60 and 62. The less restrictive proposals 61 and 63 proved more appealing to those that opposed subdivisions.
It may be concluded that those institutions that support membership subdivisions will continue to support that position regardless of more restrictive legislation regarding playing and practice seasons. This is supported by the fact that approximately one-third that support subdivisions opposed proposals 60 and 62. But, nearly two-thirds of that same group supported proposals 61 and 63 that may indicate that these proposals satisfied the desire for more restrictive rules regarding playing and practice seasons.
Conference Voting
Summary
|
|
Proposal
56 |
Proposal
57 |
Proposal
60 |
Proposal
61 |
Proposal
62 |
Proposal
63 |
Proposal 65-1 |
||||||||||||||
|
Conference |
Yes |
No |
Abs |
Yes |
No |
Abs |
Yes |
No |
Abs |
Yes |
No |
Abs |
Yes |
No |
Abs |
Yes |
No |
Abs |
Yes |
No |
Abs |
|
|
80 |
20 |
0 |
17 |
83 |
0 |
0 |
100 |
0 |
17 |
83 |
0 |
17 |
83 |
0 |
33 |
67 |
0 |
33 |
67 |
0 |
|
American Southwest
Conference |
100 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
92 |
0 |
15 |
85 |
0 |
8 |
92 |
0 |
8 |
92 |
0 |
8 |
92 |
0 |
84 |
8 |
8 |
|
Atlantic Women's Colleges
Conference |
20 |
60 |
20 |
60 |
40 |
0 |
20 |
80 |
0 |
20 |
60 |
20 |
20 |
80 |
0 |
20 |
80 |
0 |
100 |
||