With the amateurism package now on base, it's time for the other Division I deregulation efforts to take their turn at the plate.

While amateurism proceeds through the Division I governance structure -- a revised package is out for comment and scheduled to be reviewed again by the Division I Management Council and Board of Directors in October -- deregulation efforts are underway in six other NCAA bylaws, as mandated by the Board last year.

The Management Council gave initial approval to several deregulation proposals in Bylaws 11 and 16 that will be reviewed again in October, and more proposals in each of those bylaws are on the way. Bylaws 13, 15 and 17 could have packages ready for review within the next two years.

"We've backed ourselves into such a tangled web of rules that it's hard to find one that applies to the specific situation anymore," said Sandee L. Hill, associate athletics director at the University of San Francisco and chair of the Division I Committee on Financial Aid.

But to deregulate is to simplify, and Hill, who is heading the committee's efforts, thinks Bylaw 15 is a perfect candidate.

"People using Bylaw 15 are trying to give the student-athlete the benefit, and sometimes that's very difficult because the rules are so complicated," she said. "What we're proposing will benefit the student-athlete without disrupting competitive equity."

Indeed, the Bylaw 15 proposals under consideration would be student-athlete-friendly. Perhaps the most dramatic is a proposal to allow student-athletes to accept non-athletics financial aid over and above the grant-in-aid up to the cost of attendance. That would remedy situations the Committee on Financial Aid has cited in which some student-athletes actually accept less aid than they would as a general student just because of having received the athletics grant-in-aid. Under the proposal, instead of a university's academic grant being countable and a student being able to receive up only to a full athletics grant-in-aid, that student could go ahead and receive that university grant -- or others -- up to the cost of attendance.

To some, that might represent a major paradigm shift, but to the Committee on Financial Aid, it represents positive change. One, it doesn't financially penalize students for being athletes, and two, it encourages students to select a college based on academic pursuits in addition to athletics pursuits. It also treats student-athletes the same as the general student body, something that NCAA rules always have tried to accomplish.

When the group floated the idea to the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, Hill said the reaction was overwhelmingly positive.

"They were like, 'Why would you think we'd find something wrong with this?' " Hill said.

But as with the amateurism package -- and as with any legislative proposal to change something that has been in place for so long -- those who propose must be prepared for criticism. Though there wasn't any from the SAAC, Hill said she thinks the membership might need some time to get comfortable with such a major change.

"Any time we try to deregulate some of these rules that have seemed so restrictive, the membership wonders, 'Why haven't we been able to do this before?' " she said, pointing out a reluctance toward being open-minded in the face of such longtime restraint.

But Marvin Carmichael, director of financial aid at Clemson University and a member of the Committee on Financial Aid, said schools should remember that the purpose is to enhance student-athlete welfare and not to create an atmosphere of distrust.

"We feel that student-athletes should be treated no differently than students in general," Carmichael said. "All students should have the opportunity to obtain financial aid up to the cost of attendance, with the assistance of non-athletically related aid."

The complications

So just what is non-athletically related aid?

Answering that might just be the crux of concern from the membership. Though the criteria for determining what is and what isn't have been in place for a long time, the definition of what isn't might be harder to pin down now that there could be more riding on the answer. For example, School A might search the proverbial haystack to come up with an academic award to keep School B from getting its running back. In effect, it might create something of an arms race for academic-based aid. It's already started in some states that have adopted merit-based scholarships to replace need-based aid.

But Hill thinks that's unlikely overall, given the fact that any academic award an institution offers would have to be available for all students. Thus, recipients of such an award would have to have the academic pop to back it up. Schools wouldn't be likely to offer awards that have lower criteria because it could prompt a run on the scholarship bank.

"It's safe to assume that most institutions would want to keep the qualification criteria fairly high because this aid is available to all students," Hill said. "Institutions are not going to be able to have a special set of academic awards that have lower criteria unless they have a substantial amount of financial aid."

"So we're relying on the fact that an institution has to be realistic about the qualifications for an academic award and that a financial aid director is certifying that the award is based on a prospect's academic record."

Carmichael said there could be a perception that one school would have an advantage over another. "But my response to that would be that the student is the one who will be advantaged more than anything else," he said.

Other proposals

Though still very much in the early stages of discussion, another part of the Bylaw 15 deregulation package is a proposal to change the student-work rule implemented three years ago. Current legislation allows student-athletes to earn up to $2,000 above a full grant-in-aid, under specified conditions. The Committee on Financial Aid wants to deregulate those conditions, as well as delete the $2,000 cap.

Again, the goal is to let student-athletes be treated like other students.

"It's apparent to us that employment rule -- as it is structured -- is cumbersome and there's limited use under the current restrictions," Carmichael said. "We feel that student-athletes who are inclined to work ought to be bound by the same limitations as any other student. We'd like to see the $2,000 limit removed and take athletics out of the process."

The original rule endured a fight just to be implemented as it is. When it was proposed, member schools worried about who would monitor compliance, as well as the potential for abuse. Taking the earnings limit away might rekindle those concerns, but Carmichael said that shouldn't supercede the goal.

"Based on what we've heard, people don't have a problem with student-athletes working. What they have a problem with is the potential for abuse," he said. "What we're saying now is that there may be abuse, but there would be serious consequences for it, and we shouldn't burden the student just because we're worried about abuse."

The committee plans to submit the entire package in 2002, with final review from the Management Council and Board by April 2003. That means the membership should have enough time to think things over and for the committee to make necessary tweaks to the proposals. Hill said the package will be presented to groups such as NACDA and NACWAA, much as the amateurism package was, so that an early pulse can be taken.

"That might be kind of naïve, but I hope we can get there."

Timeline for Division I deregulation of NCAA Bylaws 11-17

Bylaw 11/Conduct and Employment of Athletics Personnel (consent package proposals)

Bylaw 16/Awards and Benefits (consent package proposals)

Bylaw 11/Conduct and Employment of Athletics Personnel (non-consent package proposals)

Bylaw 16/Awards and Benefits (non-consent package proposals)

Bylaw 13/Recruiting (initial proposals)

February 2002

Staff liaisons provide report to senior NCAA staff on progress and any adjustments that need to be made to the master timeline.

April 2002

Bylaw 15/Financial Aid

Bylaw 17/Playing Seasons (consent package proposals)

October 2002

Bylaw 13/Recruiting (final proposals)

Bylaw 17/Playing Seasons (non-consent package proposals)

(Bylaw 14.3/initial eligibility is on hold pending the outcome of ongoing litigation. Bylaw 14.4/continuing eligibility is under review by the NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Continuing Eligibility. That group's work is focused primarily on a review of the satisfactory-progress requirements and will include consideration of deregulation initiatives.)

Bylaw 15 deregulation

Core values
Student-athlete welfare

Every student-athlete shall have the opportunity to receive funding to cover the student-athlete's cost of attendance through a combination of permissible sources of aid.

Every student-athlete shall have the opportunity to receive the same maximum benefits afforded by an athletics grant-in-aid regardless of the sport in which he or she participates.

Every student-athlete shall have the opportunity to receive nonathletically related financial aid in addition to aid based on athletics ability without adversely affecting the student-athlete's team financial limitations.

Competitive equity

Every full grant-in-aid shall have an equivalent value across institutions so a student-athlete is able to select an institution based on academic and athletics choices.

Institutional welfare

Every institutional intercollegiate athletics program shall be administered in keeping with prudent management and fiscal practices to assure the financial stability necessary for providing student-athletes with adequate opportunities for athletics competition as an integral part of the quality of educational experience.

New legislation on hold

The Division I Management Council and Board of Directors at their April meetings approved a moratorium to be established on a staggered basis for all new legislation (other than emergency and/or noncontroversial legislation) until the appropriate deregulation project has been completed.

The groups also agreed to establish a policy requiring sponsors of legislative proposals to include, within the rationale, a statement indicating whether the proposal is consistent with Division I's deregulation efforts.

The staggered schedule is as follows:

May 1, 2001, through May 1, 2002. [No new legislation for Bylaws 11 (conduct and employment of athletics personnel) and 16 (awards and benefits) may be submitted or considered by the Management Council and Board of Directors at the October 2001 and April 2002 meetings.]

November 1, 2001, through November 1, 2002. [No new legislation for Bylaws 13 (recruiting), 14.4 (continuing eligibility) and 15 (financial aid) may be submitted or considered by the Management Council and Board of Directors at the April 2002 and October 2003 meetings.]

May 1, 2002, through May 1, 2003. [No new legislation for Bylaws 17 (playing seasons) and 14.3 (initial eligibility) may be submitted or considered by the Management Council and Board of Directors at the October 2002 and April 2003 meetings.]

(Proposals that already are in progress will continue their normal progression through the governance structure during the moratorium. For example, Bylaw 11 proposals sent out for comment during the April 2001 meeting may be acted on in October 2001.)