High-altitude thinking about ways to continue to grow Division I women’s basketball has led to preliminary discussions on altering the grants-in-aid allowed in the sport and possibly adding Academic Progress Rate incentives.

These ideas come from discussions in the NCAA Division I Women’s Basketball Discussion Group, chaired by Association President Myles Brand, and the Division I Women’s Basketball Issues Committee.

The grant-in-aid question centers on reducing the number of scholarships in Division I women’s basketball from 15 to 13. The two scholarships would be transferred to another women’s sport in the athletics department so that no participation opportunities would be lost. Rationale for the reduction is based on improving competitive equity in the sport.

Proponents of the change cite similar outcomes when scholarship maximums were reduced in men’s basketball and football. Currently, men’s basketball teams are allowed 13 grants-in-aid and football teams are at 85. Some people say that a by-product of spreading the talent created stronger programs around the country in those sports, and that the approach would affect women’s basketball similarly.

But giving up scholarships is not easy to accept for women in the sport who fought hard to gain them.

“We’ve worked so hard with Title IX and gender-equity issues on campuses that people will say, ‘Don’t you dare touch my scholarships,’ ” said Beth Bass, the CEO of the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association. “There are many variables we have to look at as we have these discussions.”

One of those variables could be the male-practice-player issue. A reduced squad size could further compromise teams’ ability to conduct full practices when injuries hit, though male practice players could lessen that impact.

The Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet last June released a 14-point “statement of expectations” for programs that use males to practice with their women’s varsity teams. Cabinet members recommended that a membership survey regarding the general use of male practice players be conducted every four years.

Bass, who is a member of the Women’s Basketball Discussion Group, said her constituency is open to any initiatives that can improve the game, including the notion of APR incentives. That would involve giving coaches whose programs have high APR scores more access to their student-athletes for individual skill instruction.

While that approach intrigues some people, others think it needs further vetting.

“Suppose in spite of a squad having a high average score that they still have one or two student-athletes on that squad who are struggling academically,” said North Carolina Faculty Athletics Representative Jack Evans, who is also a member of the Division I Committee on Academic Performance. “Is it fair to those who are struggling to let that squad have additional athletics-related activity during the preparation for a season? I would at least say it ought to be everyone on the squad is above a certain level.”

Student-athlete well-being also has to be considered, Evans said. Student-athletes may want to spend that discretionary time on academics or other non-athletics activities on campus rather than on skill instruction.

“We’re just at the genesis of discussing this,” Bass said. “Our membership has frequently discussed the desire for more mentoring and skill instruction. We’re always trying to figure out work/life balance, not just with our coaches, but also with the student-athletes.”