Division I has launched a comprehensive deregulation effort similar to ongoing initiatives in Divisions II and III that could dramatically simplify seven NCAA bylaws within two years.

The project stems from a charge the Division I Board of Directors gave last April to review each bylaw in the NCAA Division I Manual with an eye toward deregulation. The Board funneled its request through the two Division I cabinets -- the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance and the Championships/Competition Cabinets -- and asked for periodic reports, the first of which the Board received at its November 1 meeting in Indianapolis.

What has been accomplished so far is that the infrastructure for deregulation has been established and action plans have been developed along with a timeline for review, discussion and implementation. Bylaws 11 through 17 are those targeted for deregulation. Existing committees or cabinet subcommittees are reviewing Bylaws 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17, while special subcommittees have been created to review Bylaws 11 and 16.

The deregulation effort is the first in Division I since the Association's new federated governance structure was implemented in 1997. The primary goals are to produce a simplified Division I Manual that is smaller and easier to understand; prompt the membership to reaffirm that existing legislation is consistent with the Division I philosophy; ensure that monitoring activities associated with Division I regulation are reduced; and provide the membership with a heightened awareness of deregulation that results in a reduced number of legislative proposals submitted annually.

As was done in Divisions II and III, the Division I deregulation initiative is being conducted as a "top-down" approach that empowers the Division I governance structure and membership to take ownership of the process. The NCAA also has solicited input from NCAA affiliated member organizations and various NCAA committees, such as coaches associations, the Collegiate Commissioners Association and the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

So far, each subcommittee has developed an action plan that incorporates core principles, goals and potential for involvement from outside groups. The Bylaw 11 and 16 subcommittees are expected to have consent packages ready for the Management Council's initial review by April 2001. Initial proposals for Bylaw 13 are expected to be ready by October 2001, and Bylaw 15 and 17 proposals should emerge by 2002.

The amateurism deregulation package already has been sent out for membership comment and is on track for final review by the Management Council and Board of Directors in April, but the review of Bylaw 12 will continue. Deregulation efforts for Bylaw 14.3 are on hold pending current litigation involving NCAA initial-eligibility standards. The Subcommittee on Continuing-Eligibility Issues' review of Bylaw 14.4 is focused primarily on satisfactory-progress requirements and will include consideration of deregulation initiatives.

All of the deregulation efforts involve the subcommittees having to work around legislative proposals already in the pipeline, which has presented a challenge. For example, the Championships/Competition Cabinet in September tabled several conference-initiated proposals that had been referred by its Playing and Practice Seasons Subcommittee. While the cabinet tabled the proposals in order to determine if they were consistent with the deregulation effort, sponsors of some proposals are concerned that their regulatory measures are being slowed by deregulatory concerns. Others believe, however, that acting on current proposals in a normal time frame might require legislation to be quickly reversed because of deregulation, which would be inefficient.

While those challenges and others might hinder the deregulation effort, the Board of Directors has placed the initiative high on its priority list. The subcommittees charged with specific bylaws also are committed to obtaining input from both membership and outside groups in order to facilitate the process.

The proposed two-year window for completing the project should provide ample time for membership input and discussion. Part of the programming, in fact, scheduled Saturday, January 6, at the 2001 Convention in Orlando, Florida, will be devoted to Division I deregulation issues, including presentations from the two cabinet chairs as well as a question-and-answer segment.

Deregulation subcommittee chairs

* Bylaw 11 (athletics personnel)

Division I Subcommittee on Deregulation of Bylaw 11

Chair: C. William Byrne Jr., director of athletics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

* Bylaw 12 (amateurism)

Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Agents and Amateurism

Chair: Christine Grant, director of women's athletics, University of Iowa

* Bylaw 13 (recruiting)

Chair: Mike McGee, director of athletics, University of South Carolina, Columbia

* Bylaw 14.3 (initial eligibility)

Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Initial-Eligibility Issues

Chair: Jim Casteneda, faculty athletics representative, Rice University

* Bylaw 14.4 (continuing eligibility)

Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Continuing-Eligibility Issues

Chair: Thomas Adair, faculty athletics representative, Texas A&M University, College Station

* Bylaw 15 (financial aid)

Division I Committee on Financial Aid

Chair: Sandee L. Hill, senior associate director of athletics, University of San Francisco

* Bylaw 16 (awards and benefits)

Championships/Competition Cabinet Subcommittee on Deregulation of Bylaw 16

Chair: Linda G. Herman, associate director of athletics, Illinois State University

* Bylaw 17 (playing and practice seasons)

Chair: Ron English, associate commissioner, Ohio Valley Conference