SAN DIEGO -- Division II took a large -- and surprisingly easy -- first step in its legislative deregulation initiative when delegates to the 2000 NCAA Convention hardly even paused in approving 11 proposals to deregulate Bylaws 11 and 13.

In fact, the January 10 Division II business session may have been the most sponsor-friendly legislative session in NCAA history. Of the 47 proposals considered exclusively by Division II, 46 were approved, almost all with a minimum of debate.

The entire legislative session was conducted at warp speed. Not until Proposal No. 31 did a person other than a sponsor speak to any proposal.

The only proposal to be defeated was No. 35, which would have permitted an institution to make unlimited telephone calls to a prospective student-athlete after the prospect signed the institution's offer of admission or financial aid.

The only other proposals that were debated to any extent were No. 32, which eliminated restrictions on recruiting materials, and No. 42, an exemption for teams from two conferences to appear in a postseason bowl game. Even the debate on No. 42 had less to do with the merits of the proposal than with questioning why such matters must be dealt with legislatively.

By far, the most significant legislation was the deregulation package, which was made up of Proposal Nos. 24-28 (Bylaw 11) and 29-34 (Bylaw 13). The proposals represented the first phase of a five-year deregulation plan designed to eliminate unnecessary legislation, to simplify the application of necessary legislation, and to simplify and reduce legislative monitoring activities.

Of the deregulation proposals, the closest vote was on Proposal No. 31, which still passed with nearly a two-thirds majority. That proposal, effective August 1, eliminates the restriction on the number of times an institution may evaluate a prospective student-athlete during the academic year.

Critics of the proposal claimed that the change will favor larger programs and will disadvantage programs in geographically remote areas. The proposal passed 136-70, with two abstentions.

The only other deregulation proposal to be debated was No. 32, which eliminated restrictions on recruiting materials that can be provided to prospects. Kelly J. Higgins, athletics director at the University of South Dakota, warned of "open warfare" on recruiting materials if the proposal passed. Kenneth Borden, faculty athletics representative at the University of Indianapolis, echoed the thought, noting that Division II is "poor monetarily but rich in competitive spirit." The proposal passed, 156-52 with three abstentions.

Indeed, the delegates seemed overwhelmingly in concert with a description of deregulation originated by John Hogan of the Colorado School of Mines and offered by Division II Legislation Committee Chair Paul H. Engelmann of Central Missouri State University. "It is time for Division II to limit its legislation to rules that apply to 99 percent of the membership rather than having legislation to close the loopholes for one percent of the membership," he said.

The second phase of deregulation involves Bylaw 15. A package of concepts derived from a deregulation summit held last summer were submitted to the Division II Management Council and Presidents Councils at their January meetings. Those concepts eventually will take legislative form and be considered at the 2001 Convention. The deregulation summit for the summer of 2001 will focus on Bylaw 17 (playing and practice seasons).

In addition, a separate examination of amateurism issues may have the effect of deregulating Bylaw 12. That package of legislation will be developed by the Amateurism Project Team and submitted for consideration at the 2001 Convention.

Other business

While most attention was focused on the deregulation package, several other pieces of significant legislation were approved. Among them:

Proposal No. 13, which establishes authority for the Division II Presidents Council to adopt emergency legislation when appropriate.

Proposal No. 20, which permits a new championship to be established in a women's sport if the minimum sponsorship criteria have been met for one year (rather than two). At the Division II chief executive officers luncheon, Edward Hammond, president of Fort Hays State University, expressed his belief that the proposal should not be limited to women's sports. The Presidents Council subsequently agreed but determined that an amendment-to-amendment to that effect would be out of order since it would increase the modification of the legislation. However, the timing is moot since no prospective men's championships are at or near the minimum required numbers. The legislation recommended by Hammond likely will be considered at the 2001 Convention.

Proposal Nos. 21 and 22, which establish National Collegiate Championships in women's ice hockey and women's water polo, respectively.

Proposal No. 23, which eliminates the geographical scheduling waiver in Division II football.