Perhaps no single NCAA issue has had a more up-and-down adventure this year than amateurism. From the high-point of near-unanimous adoption by Division II delegates at the 2001 Convention to the lower point of concern from Divisions I and III later on, the now well-known amateurism deregulation package that was put together three years ago has become the NCAA version of a ride on the Cyclone at Coney Island.

To be sure, amateurism wasn't the only show in town during 2001. The second full year in the new millennium was a year in which championships in women's water polo, Division I women's ice hockey and Division II women's lacrosse made their debuts. It was a year in which the Knight Commission returned as a newsmaker and had a domino effect on several groups that subsequently emerged to tackle reform. It was a year in which several legal decisions went the NCAA's way, including an end to the Cureton case and a possible beginning to a new way of looking at initial and continuing eligibility. It was a year that ultimately was touched by tragedy, as the events of September 11 hit close to home at almost every NCAA campus.

But amateurism was in the news on an almost monthly basis. It started at the January Convention when the Division II membership approved Proposal No. 12 (Amateurism -- Activities Prior to Initial Enrollment) by a margin of 217-29, with two abstentions. In percentage terms, the vote was 88 percent for and 12 percent against.

It paved the way for pre-enrolled student-athletes in Division II to accept prize money, sign contracts, enter a professional draft and/or be drafted, accept compensation for athletics participation and compete with professionals. It also provides an "organized-competition rule," in which prospects who compete in organized competition after leaving high school lose a year of college eligibility for each year of organized competition.

Proposal No. 12 represented two years of work by the division's Amateurism Project Team, the Management Council and the Presidents Council. Sponsors attributed the overwhelming approval of the legislation to an aggressive education program, which sought to identify and address concerns about the legislation well before they reached the Convention floor.

Carol M. Dunn, chair of the project team and director of athletics at California State University, Los Angeles, advised delegates that the legislation would bring greater competitive equity to the division while at the same time enhancing the treatment of student-athletes by eliminating the overly vague "intent to professionalize" standard as a test for eligibility.

But at the same time the deregulation package was being warmly received in Division II, Division I members who attended a forum to discuss the topic were raising their voices against it.

"This creates a third-party relationship between players and coaches and creates far more problems than we are seeking to solve," said Mike McGee, director of athletics at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. And John A. White, chancellor at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, told amateurism advocates that "Despite your best efforts, I think you're on a slippery slope that is much steeper and slipperier than you think."

They were among many opponents who seemed convinced that the package in Division I would open doors to precisely the unseemly influences on college sports that the NCAA has been trying to keep out, saying that allowing prospects to accept prize money, sign contracts and accept compensation creates a pay-for-play environment fraught with unintended consequences.

Those who supported the package spoke up, but at the Convention forum, at least, they were outnumbered. One of them was Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee Chair Brian Dillon, a golf student-athlete from the University of the Pacific (California), who said, "This will give current and potential student-athletes choices they currently do not have. Give us the freedom to make our own choices. The package strengthens the student in student-athlete."

In Division III, while the mood wasn't as accepting as in Division II, it wasn't as cautious as in Division I, either. At the Division III governance meetings in April, the Management and Presidents Councils warmed up to most of the amateurism proposals, except one that would permit prospects to accept pay or other forms of compensation (such as stipends or educational expenses) for athletics participation without losing eligibility in that sport. That one was removed from the package because it implies a financial promise based on athletics ability, similar to an athletics scholarship, which is inconsistent with the Division III philosophy.

And even though the rest of the package was moved along so that it could be voted on next month, some members of the Councils remained concerned about former "professionals" -- particularly those who had played on professional teams overseas -- participating on Division III teams.

Comfort level

Because Division II was the first to adopt sweeping changes in amateurism, it also is serving as a test for the NCAA membership. And because it is the only division to have adopted anything thus far, it is in the unique position of having an amateurism rule for pre-enrolled student-athletes that is significantly more permissive than the rest of the membership's.

But few in the division are thinking a mistake was made in January. The Division II membership seems to have reached an early comfort level with amateurism despite the other two divisions not following suit. In fact, Division II members seem to relish the leadership role.

Clint Bryant, former Division II Management Council chair, said the legislation's benefit goes beyond the present. "What we've done is stepped out and looked at how amateurism is going to have to be viewed in the future," he said. "I don't think that Division II did this necessarily for right now. We did it as you look at amateurism 10, 15 or 20 years down the road."

If Division II remains the only place for "failed professionals" to turn, however, there is a concern that it could upset the NCAA's competitive balance, particularly in sports such as baseball, tennis and golf. But others argue that the amateurism package has safeguards in place to protect against such a situation. For example, an athlete who has competed for two or three years professionally would have to sit out an academic year in residence and would lose a year of eligibility for every year of organized competition in which he or she participated. All the while, that athlete would be counting against the institution's financial aid limits. It would seem that not many institutions would be willing to make that deal.

It remains to be seen whether Division II's comfort level will sway sentiment in Division I, though the issue appears likely to be resolved in that division this April. That path toward a decision was paved when the Division I Board of Directors, after a healthy discussion of the amateurism issue in August, asked that the proposals be separated into three alternative packages and circulated to Division I conferences for review. Essentially, the presidents believed that in this case, the parts would be more palatable to the membership than the sum.

Each package includes the organized-competition rule, which many believe is the cornerstone of amateurism deregulation. Package A also includes proposals that would allow prospects to compete with professionals, sign a professional contract, enter a professional draft and be drafted. Package B is the same as A but adds a proposal that would allow prospects to accept prize money based on place finish. Package C is the same as B but adds a proposal that would allow prospects to receive compensation for athletics participation. There's also a Package D, which is to do nothing.

In effect, Package C is the most comprehensive, and Package A is the least. Christine Grant, former director of women's athletics at the University of Iowa who has overseen the amateurism package since its inception, favors the former.

"But I understand how long it takes for people to try to sever the link of amateurism with money," she said. "I know, because I've gone through it. I could live with either of the other two packages, but I would encourage people to question themselves as to why prospects should not be allowed to accept money. It gives them no competitive advantage. But I realize this is a very emotional topic that requires adequate time to think it through."

Federation

If nothing else, the amateurism issue is an example of how the Association's federated structure was designed to work when it was implemented in 1997. Each division has had the autonomy to craft legislation to best fit its needs and interests. In the case of amateurism, though, is having different standards in each division in the best interests of prospective student-athletes? That may remain to be seen, but at the very least, it would figure to make prospects' lives more complicated.

"Would differences by division regarding amateurism add a layer of complexity to what already may be perceived as complex legislation? Absolutely," said the NCAA's Kevin Lennon, vice-president for membership services. "Would it then become incumbent upon coaches as the primary communicators of our rules to be even more clear with young people? Absolutely.

"But failure to take actions just because it would make it harder to explain is not a good reason. It does, however, make the challenges greater. But we need to do what's best for student-athletes and intercollegiate athletics, and if the outcome of that is greater complexity, then we're just going to have to work with our members and the NCAA staff to make it as clear as possible."

Unless Divisions I and III adopt what Division II did last January, which seems unlikely, there will be cases in which a prospect is eligible in one division but not in another. If the prospect is undecided about which division to pursue, the rules differences may play a deciding role. Is a principle such as amateurism core enough to the Association that it needs to be uniform across the board? So far, the membership doesn't seem to think so. Could that lead to other differences? Say, for example, that Division I wants to define what constitutes a core course in math differently from Division II. Federation would make that possible, but whether it's practical is another matter.

Lennon said it gets tricky particularly in pre-enrollment issues.

"We as an Association need to continue to evaluate those issues that impact a significant population that has yet to make choices about where they will enter the NCAA membership," he said. "It is what federation was designed to do, but if the regulations are radically different by division, then we're going to have some challenges."

That might make for another ride on the rollercoaster.

Status of amateurism proposals

Division I

The Management Council in October tabled consideration of the proposals related to pre-enrolled individuals until April 2002. The Board of Directors had requested that alternative packages containing various existing proposals be structured for review. Three alternatives have been created and circulated to Division I conferences for review. All include the organized-competition rule (Proposal No. 99-106-1).

Package A includes proposals that would allow prospects to compete with professionals (Proposal No. 99-109), sign a professional contract (Proposal No. 99-108), enter a professional draft and be drafted (Proposal No. 99-107), and the organized-competition rule.

Package B is the same as A but adds a proposal that would allow prospects to accept prize money based on place finish (Proposal No. 99-110).

Package C is the same as B but adds a proposal that would allow prospects to receive compensation for athletics participation (Proposal No. 99-111).

(There also is an option to vote for no change.)

Division II

The Division II membership adopted Proposal No. 12 at the 2001 Convention. Proposal No. 12 allows for prospects in Division II to accept prize money, sign contracts, enter a professional draft and/or be drafted, accept compensation for athletics participation and compete with professionals. It also provides an "organized-competition rule," in which prospects who compete in organized competition after leaving high school lose a year of college eligibility for each year of organized competition.

The proposal became effective August 1, 2001.

Division III

The Division III membership will vote on the following proposals at the 2002 Convention in Indianapolis:

Proposal No. 40, which specifies that prospects who compete in organized competition after leaving high school lose a year of college eligibility for each year of organized competition.

Proposal No. 41, which allows prospects to accept prize money based on place finish.

Proposal No. 42, which permits prospects to participate on a professional team without jeopardizing intercollegiate eligibility.

Proposal No. 43, which permits prospects to sign a contract or commitment of any kind to participate in professional athletics without jeopardizing intercollegiate eligibility.

Proposal No. 44, which permits prospects to enter a professional league's draft and/or be drafted without jeopardizing intercollegiate eligibility.

(Another proposal in the amateurism package that would have allowed prospects to receive compensation for athletics participation before initial enrollment was withdrawn.)