The NCAA Executive Committee approved the use of Association reserves during its April 21 meeting.

In planning for the final payment of damages in the case, $10 million in revenue-distribution money to Division I schools already was placed in escrow from the 1998-99 budget. An additional $10 million in revenue-distribution money will be withheld from the 1999-00 budget. Schools would receive credit from the $20 million escrow account based on the distribution formula, and the credit would reduce the effect of the latter two "one-third" pieces.

In other words, the $54.5 million settlement would first be reduced by the $18.25 million in NCAA reserves. The remaining $36.25 million will be charged to the schools as outlined in the two $18.125 million segments. The result would be balances due from each Division I member ranging from approximately $40,000 to approximately $57,000.

For example, the nine schools in the Atlantic Coast Conference would be responsible for $239,989 each. That figure, however, would be reduced by the escrow-fund credit for each school ($199,456 in the case of the Atlantic Coast Conference). The result would be a balance due ($40,533 for Atlantic Coast schools).

"It is a very workable solution, even though there will be schools both large and small that may have preferred a different formula," said Graham B. Spanier, Board chair and president of Pennsylvania State University. "As the president at Penn State, I would like to have paid less," he said. "But as members of the Board, we have to look at the big picture, and we agreed that this is a solution that will work."

In another budgetary action, the Board approved the $10-million recommended increase in the 1999-00 distribution to Division I institutions, noting that this increase can be provided without impacting the $20-million escrow fund.

Initial eligibility

In other action, the Board reviewed research data on various initial-eligibility models. The models are being considered as part of an ongoing review of the standards but have recently received greater attention after a federal district judge in Philadelphia enjoined the Association from using the initial-eligibility requirements known as Proposition 16.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay in March of the lower court's ruling pending an appeal of the decision.

"We had a thorough discussion of the data and various alternatives," Spanier said. "My goal as Board chair is to focus our attention on a specific solution at the group's August meeting. If we reach a decision before the appeal is decided, our action would most likely be to establish an interim standard."

The Board agreed to work with consultants identified by the Management Council's Administrative Committee from representatives within the governance structure who have been involved in the consideration of initial-eligibility standards.

Legislation

In providing final action on a number of legislative proposals brought by the Division I Management Council, the Board unanimously defeated Proposal No. 98-91, which would have permitted Division I-A football student-athletes to participate in individual skill-related instruction outside the regular season.

In defeating the proposal, the Board noted that the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee did not support the proposal. The proposal earlier failed to receive enough support from the I-AA members of the Management Council to forward the proposal to the Board for that subdivision.

The Board also approved Proposal No. 98-61, which establishes a limit of 30 on the number of automatic-qualifying positions in the Division I Men's Basketball Championship. If the number of Division I conferences increases above 30, lower-ranked leagues would have an opportunity to compete through a preliminary round of competition administered and funded by the NCAA.

All participants also will be guaranteed at least one financial unit.

The proposal originally included the Division I Women's Basketball Championship but was amended to apply only to the men's tournament at this time.

The Board adopted the remaining legislative proposals forwarded by the Management Council, except for the proposals that apply only to Division I-AA football (see Management Council story, page 10).