SAN DIEGO -- Even as delegates to the 2000 NCAA Convention were focusing on the issue of the day -- the deregulation of Bylaws 11 and 13 -- they were turning their attention toward development of another major deregulation effort: an amateurism policy that would be fairer and easier to manage.

Representatives of the Division II Amateurism Project Team provided the membership January 9 with broad recommendations and concepts for future policy for pre-enrolled student-athletes.

The concepts were based on a year-long analysis.

In a presentation at the Division II issues forum, project team representatives emphasized that the division's amateurism legislation should be guided primarily by the welfare of student-athletes rather than by simply determining whether student-athletes have professionalized themselves.

"How can we deregulate amateurism legislation to give our prospective student-athletes more opportunities and more chances to choose what is best for them while at the same time recognizing that these additional opportunities that we provide then may lead to competitive advantages?" asked project team member Tony Capon, faculty athletics representative at the University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown, and moderator of the program.

The answer, according to the project team, is disarmingly simple.

The group believes the division should employ a rule that would charge athletes with a season of competition for every year of organized competition after the completion of the prospect's senior year of high school. Those affected also would be required to fulfill one academic year in residence before becoming eligible. Receipt of prize money or other compensation no longer would render an athlete permanently ineligible, nor would competition with professionals.

Capon and Julie Roe-Sumner, NCAA director of student-athlete reinstatement, noted that the current standard for ineligibility -- the intent to professionalize -- has many disadvantages. Among them are that "intent to professionalize" is a difficult concept to apply and that the philosophy severely punishes young people who take an unsuccessful chance on a professional athletics career.

To illustrate the weakness of the current approach, Roe-Sumner cited the facts in a pair of student-athlete reinstatement cases.

In the first case, a golfer turned professional upon graduation from high school. He played in nine tournaments with professionals. After it became clear he would not succeed at that level, the golf association reestablished him as an amateur. However, because he had shown an intent to professionalize, he was declared permanently ineligible by the NCAA.

In the second case, a young man competed for 15 months on a professional basketball team as an amateur, receiving only actual and necessary expenses. His eligibility was restored for college competition after being held out of 10 percent of his institution's contests.

"I think it's interesting to compare the two cases," Roe-Sumner said, "because you have one prospective student-athlete who registered as a professional and showed intent to professionalize and you have another who didn't sign a contract and therefore didn't show an intent to professionalize. But if you look at the cases, one could easily argue that 15 months of professional competition can yield a much higher competitive advantage than nine golf tournaments."

Under the project team's proposal, both athletes would have to fulfill one academic year in residence. The basketball player would lose two seasons of competition while the golfer would lose one, assuming the nine tournaments occurred in one calendar year.

The flexibility of the concept appeals to the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

"We want to broaden the opportunity for student-athletes to pursue athletics as a vocation while not penalizing the traditional student-athlete who competes as an avocation," said Heather Andrews, a SAAC member and a varsity tennis player at Missouri Southern State College.

The Division II Presidents Council, which viewed the presentation at its January 9 meeting, also seemed to support the plan.

Members of the Division II Management Council, who first saw the presentation in October, appear mostly to support the concept. Some Management Council members, however, are concerned about the details that have yet to be filled in.

For instance, the term "organized competition," as it applies to the season-of-competition proposal, is not yet completely clear. Roe-Sumner did provide those attending the issues forum with a "work-in-progress" definition that defines "organized competition" as any competition:

In which compensation is provided to any participants.

Pursuant to the signing of a contract of being selected in a draft.

Funded by a professional sports organization, excluding nonprofit organizations.

Funded by a representative of an institution's athletics interests.

As for enforcement, there is the fear that it will be difficult to ascertain the experience level of foreign student-athletes. The project team, however, believes this concern is misplaced and that the proposal could actually be easier to enforce than the current rule.

"The group feels, and I concur, that it's a lot easier to find out if someone participated rather than whether they actually received money," said Sue Williams, women's cross country coach at the University of California, Davis. "Money is much harder to track."

Moreover, the project team believes the system would not be burdened with confusion over where foreign student-athletes fall on the amateurism spectrum. They would have to account only for the amount of time spent in organized competition, whether they were paid or not.

The project team is still gathering reaction to its work and will continue to make itself available over the next several months.

Also, probably in February, the project team will take on the equally daunting task of addressing the deregulation of amateurism legislation for enrolled student-athletes. Legislation from the Amateurism Project Team is expected to be considered at the 2001 Convention.