They are different in that they allow a player with a pivot foot to fall if they can maintain it, but otherwise the same. And that is consistent with how I've seen it called in both HS and College.

The dictionary definition of "maintain" supports BNRs position. It is to continue something etc. I understand your position. Frankly, i don't think I've ever seen or will ever see the play described. A foot is going to hit at some point and when it does it becomes the pivot foot. It will move. That's why it's always called travel in high school and colllege.(or because in college folks assume falling is travel)

If this were a test question based only on the wording of the rule "maintaining" then I'm with BNR. Now the rules folks may not have meant it that way but that is what the language they have used means.

In my college games, if an airborne players hits the ground torso first, I'm not calling a travel. I may have had that play once or twice in my college career.

By the letter of the rule i think you are correct. a guy lands on his back without his feet hitting the floor isn't travel, yet. Also by the letter of the rule, when either foot touches the floor it becomes the pivot. The player in the op didn't gain control on the floor so he doesn't get the benefit of the sliding/slash sitting up provisions. I havnt ever seen a player fall and keep both feet up in the air etc. A player may fall and hit with feet up first but at some point, very soon after, one is going to touch floor…and move etc.

An NCAAM approved ruling for this situation would be welcome.

Maybe I'll shoot Art an email.

I'd save it for something else. You've had it twice in a career I think u said. I really think the way college rules are written that if his foot or heal touches the floor, even after he has landed entirely on his backside, that foot becomes a pivot and a player isn't going to keep it or even know to try and keep it while laying on floor. It's going to be travel