Though there will not be any proposed legislation emerging for a comment period from the Division I Management Council's July 24-25 meeting in Boston, the group will tackle a full agenda of issues that have practical as well as philosophical implications on future division operations.

The gathering will be the Council's first nonlegislative meeting since the new legislative calendar was adopted last year. The revised cycle calls for the Council to consider legislation only during its October and April meetings. The group was to have held its first nonlegislative meeting at the 2000 Convention in January, but the legislative-heavy basketball issues package was at a critical stage and called for the Council to act on the proposals in order to initiate the comment period before final action could be taken in April.

The only legislative proposals the Council would be permitted to vote on at this meeting would be emergency, noncontroversial legislation.

With most of the basketball package now behind it, the Council is expected to begin to turn its attention to the next benchmark package on the Division I horizon -- amateurism. The Agents and Amateurism Subcommittee of the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet has worked for the past two years to develop a deregulation package regarding rules for pre-enrolled student-athletes. Various concepts within the package have been debated in different forums, both at the conference level and at the January Convention, and as the proposals have been refined, the package is ready for review by various entities within the governance structure.

The Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet at its June meeting endorsed a number of amateurism deregulations, including proposals permitting prospective student-athletes to accept educational expenses from any individual or entity paid directly to the educational institution. The Management Council will receive an update regarding the package of proposals and membership reaction and concerns, but the cabinet will not forward a comprehensive deregulation package to the Council until after the cabinet's September meeting. That way, the Council can give initial approval to the package at its October legislative meeting to initiate the comment period and spur further debate at the 2001 Convention.

Because of the wide-ranging impact of the package, however, the Agents and Amateurism Subcommittee has suggested that final consideration by the Board of Directors be withheld until October 2001, which would allow all constituents time for a thorough review of the package.

While amateurism moves toward the Council's front burner, there still are some basketball issues that need attention. When the Board approved its basketball package in April, it referred at least one issue back to the Council for consideration. Specifically, a proposal that would establish an incentive-based model tying scholarships to graduation rates in men's basketball, which had been defeated by the Council earlier, was resurrected and amended by the Board because it believed the proposal would strengthen academic expectations for men's basketball student-athletes.

The Board requested that the Council support legislation stipulating that schools whose graduation rate for men's basketball student-athletes falls below 50 percent would be able to award only 12 grants-in-aid, rather than the current maximum of 13. The Board also agreed that for the purposes of calculating graduation rates for men's basketball student-athletes, institutions may exclude any men's basketball student-athlete who leaves the institution in good academic standing. The Board also asked the Council to further define what constitutes good academic standing in that calculation.

The Council also will review information on establishing academic eligibility standards for freshmen basketball student-athletes. The Board revisited a measure that was defeated by the Council that would have required male basketball student-athletes to successfully complete a minimum of 12 hours acceptable toward a degree by the end of the first term of their freshman year. The Board recommended that a mechanism for measuring satisfactory academic progress be developed, but it referred the issue to the newly established Basketball Issues Committee, which is expected to be appointed this summer and begin its work in the fall.

Other issues

Other items expected to receive Council review in Boston are reports from two Council subcommittees, including the Membership Subcommittee, which is expected to recommend that clarifications be made in Proposal No. 2000-36 regarding Division I-A membership football requirements. The proposal provides that a Division I school meets football attendance requirements if it averages more than 17,000 in actual paid attendance for home contests in the immediate four-year period and eliminates exceptions and waivers for the requirements.

The purpose of the legislation is to establish more stringent attendance standards consistent with expectations for competing in the subdivision while providing deserving institutions interested in moving to Division I-A the opportunity to participate at that level. But many questions have been raised regarding the application of the proposal, which prompted the subcommittee's request for Council clarification. The proposal now has completed a membership comment period and will be considered for second approval at the Management Council's October meeting.

The Council's Governance Subcommittee's report will include recommended protocol for restructuring the composition of the Management Council when there are changes in conference alignment. The subcommittee also is developing recommendations ensuring that representation of women and ethnic minority on Division I governance groups is consistently maintained at above minimum levels.

Other items on the Council's agenda include:

An update on the Division I strategic plan from the Strategic Planning Subcommittee, in which the Council will be asked to prioritize various Division I issues.

Discussion regarding a perceived "trust gap" between student-athletes and athletics administrators. The discussion originated during the Council's joint meeting in January with the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, which had requested the topic be on the Council's first nonlegislative agenda.

Review of issues related to the effective date for legislation to eliminate preseason football games.

Review of issues related to the Championships/Competition Cabinet report (see story, page 1).