The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee spent most of its April 8-9 meeting in Indianapolis making sure its voice would be heard regarding a number of student-athlete issues that would be reviewed the following day by the Division I Management Council.

The most obvious issue that required the SAAC's attention was the basketball issues package that appeared before the Management Council during its April 10-11 meeting, also in Indianapolis. The student-athletes developed positions on many of the 31 proposals in the package, and their input proved to be significant during the Council's deliberations.

Primary among the proposals the SAAC supported was one that would allow schools to provide entering men's and women's basketball student-athletes summer aid for a minimum of six hours of instruction toward any one of the school's degree programs (excluding physical education courses). The proposal is designed to promote increased graduation rates by acclimating student-athletes to the college environment earlier.

Though the proposal approved by the Management Council applies only to men's and women's basketball as part of a five-year study on the impact of the "head start" on graduation rates, the SAAC supported the application of the legislation to all sports.

The SAAC also supported dramatic changes in the summer recruiting calendar, a stance that was shared by the Council. The SAAC called for significant reduction in the summer evaluation period and opposed the May contact period because of the unnecessary intrusion it creates with a prospect's academic studies. The Council during its meeting promised to revise the summer recruiting structure, though the specific nature of the new system is yet to be defined. The Council also voted down the May telephone call.

The latter proved to be significant, as the decision factored into a subsequent Council action that earned the SAAC's attention. The Council gave second approval to a proposal in women's basketball that would have recommended an earlier calendar date for telephone calls to high-school juniors. But the student-athlete members of the Council urged the group to reconsider the action, citing academic-performance issues as reasons to abandon the proposal. The student-athletes argued that the May contact period is in the middle of final exams for most high-school students and that the junior year is the most important academically for prospects, particularly with preparations for taking college entrance examinations. The student-athletes also pointed out the Council's earlier action regarding the same issue in men's basketball.

The Council subsequently defeated the proposal upon reconsideration.

Other areas of the basketball issues package on which the SAAC agreed with what the Council eventually did included not supporting a series of proposals that would have provided an incentive-based financial aid model that bases the number of initial grants-in-aid a school could award on its four-year graduation rate in men's basketball.

The SAAC did differ with the Council, however, on a proposal that restricts the number of initial counters from year to year, though the Council approved an amendment to the proposal that is more in line with the SAAC's rationale. The Council approved legislation to restrict the number of initial counters to eight in a two-year period, with a limit of five in any one year -- a change from the original proposal's limit of four annually. The SAAC had expressed concern that four per year is not sufficient when factoring in the number of graduates, transfers and players leaving early for the professional leagues in a given year.

Significant in the SAAC discussions concerning the basketball package was the inclusion of a representative from the newly established National Association of Basketball Coaches Student-Athlete Basketball Council. The chair of the group, Shane Battier of Duke University, participated in the discussion via teleconference. The SAAC saw the connection as a positive step toward uniting both groups into a representative voice for basketball student-athletes and as an example for student-athletes from all sports to use to work issues through the NCAA governance structure.

Future issues

In addition to discussion regarding basketball legislation, the SAAC also took a look at a couple of issues that will dominate future meetings. One of the issues -- voluntary workouts -- has been ongoing for the last several years and involves the use of voluntary summer workouts, both within the academic year and during the summer, as countable athletically related activities.

At issue is what many student-athletes believe is the tendency for coaches and other athletics administrators to treat those workouts as mandatory, which student-athletes feel is contrary to the spirit of the legislation.

The Management Council has asked the student-athletes to further define what they believe to be "voluntary" as a way of giving the Council a better understanding of how to act upon or modify the proposed legislation. In discussions during the SAAC's meeting, the committee reaffirmed its support of Proposal No. 99-74, which would allow for the workouts under specific conditions, noting that the increased involvement of the strength and conditioning coach in the workouts is important for safety reasons and would benefit student-athletes who choose to work out in the summer.

However, the committee strongly recommended that such workouts must be voluntary and at the request of the student-athlete; further, that there should not be any reporting back to the sport coach about the attendance or performance-related aspects of the workouts. If those conditions cannot be provided for in the legislation, the SAAC would oppose Proposal No. 99-74.

The committee plans to further define the conditions of "voluntary" during its June meeting.

Also in June, the SAAC plans a comprehensive review of amateurism proposals that are working their way through the structure. The SAAC intends to develop position statements on each of the proposals at that time. The SAAC also will discuss pre-college educational expenses as well, after having been asked by the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet's Subcommittee on Agents and Amateurism for input on the issue that was at the heart of several high-profile eligibility cases this past year.

Other highlights

Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee
April 8-9/Indianapolis

* Reaffirmed its stance on permissible uses of the student-athlete special assistance fund and that student-athletes should be allowed to use the fund up to one year beyond their athletics eligibility. (The Management Council subsequently agreed to consider the request and directed NCAA staff to draft legislation, if necessary, for Management Council review in October.) The committee also noted its desire to work with the Division I Committee on Financial Aid, which had reviewed the issue in February, in expanding permissible uses of the fund.

* Examined the issue of length of terms for committee members and recommended that the Management Council direct NCAA staff to draft legislation to indicate that a student-athlete may serve on the committee up to one year after completion of their intercollegiate athletics eligibility. (The Council subsequently approved the request.)

* Recommended Doug Fredrick, Mid-Continent Conference, as one of the two committee representatives to the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet. (The Council subsequently approved the request.)

* Reviewed information available on the NCAA's SAAC Web page, including the SAAC's frequently asked questions document on playing and practice season limitations (voluntary workouts).