ORLANDO, Florida -- Three years ago, what had become a steady stream of reinstatement requests for student-athletes who had violated amateurism rules was seen by the Association's Agents and Amateurism Subcommittee as a signal from the NCAA membership for change.

But the majority of members who spoke from the floor of the Division I forum January 8 at the NCAA Convention were adamantly opposed to a package of proposals that would provide such change.

Those individuals also would have to fulfill a year in residence at their institution before becoming eligible to participate in intercollegiate sports.

According to Christine Grant, former director of women's athletics at the University of Iowa and chair of the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet's Agents and Amateurism Subcommittee, the package would drastically reduce the number of reinstatement requests and provide what is in the best interests of student-athletes without giving anyone a competitive advantage.

"The current reinstatement process based on 'intent to professionalize' does not work," Grant said. "We also found that our reinstatement system was inconsistent. Because of the way amateurism is defined in other countries, the current rules often put domestic prospects at a competitive disadvantage.

"But I believe the proposals solve the competitive-equity problem. The package also gets us out of regulating in pre-enrollment, will be much easier to investigate and monitor, will allow 'failed professionals' a second chance at an education, and helps us establish a philosophical framework for both the pre-enrollment and post-enrollment areas that is rational, logical and easier to understand."

Unintended consequences

Opponents, however, seem convinced that the proposals open doors to precisely the unseemly influences on college sports that the NCAA has been trying to keep out. They believe that allowing prospects to accept prize money, sign contracts and accept compensation creates a pay-for-play environment fraught with unintended consequences.

"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 the subcommittee, "Despite your best efforts, I think you're on a slippery slope that is much steeper and slipperier than you think."

The majority of delegates who opposed the package were concentrated among the Southeastern and Big East Conferences, in addition to other individuals, and did not necessarily represent a consensus of the more than 300 members attending the forum. However, their opinions were much more vociferous than those who support the package.

Robert F. Kanaby, executive director of the National Federation of State High School Associations, spoke on behalf of his organization when he said the package would "produce a generation of premier athletes who expect to be paid when they bring victories to your schools."

"Pay for play or pay of tuition by interested third parties destroys the concept of education over athletics that our organization and the NCAA have jointly held for 100 years," Kanaby said.

SEC Commissioner Roy F. Kramer supported Kanaby's concern, claiming that the proposals would force high schools to implement regulations they may not be equipped for in order to protect interscholastic athletes.

"We (the NCAA) complain all the time that the professional leagues don't work with us to solve various concerns and now we tell the high schools to go solve their own problems," Kramer said.

Others, however, supported the proposals, including a unanimous vote from the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC). Brian Dillon, a golf student-athlete from the University of the Pacific (California) and chair of the SAAC, 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."

The Big East SAAC also chimed in with its support of the package.

And Prentice Gautt, associate commissioner of the Big 12, said, "Five of the proposals expand and enhance opportunities for benefits for student-athletes and do not jeopardize the fundamental concept of amateurism. There are concerns about pay for play, but these proposals will bring our regulations in line with current practices."

A 'faceless fear'

"Our group did just that for more than two years before we understood that the proposals do not give prospects a competitive advantage," she said.

Grant's group has left virtually no stone unturned in its quest for input over the past 18 months. Countless presentations to NCAA governance groups, coaches associations and other constituencies have led to several modifications to the original package developed in 1999, including the creation of the organized-competition rule, something Grant said was an epiphany for the subcommittee at the time.

"It completed a philosophical framework that ties sports participation to education, not to money, draft or contracts," she said. "Through research, we have found that there is not the opportunity for 99 percent of student-athletes to make a lot of money. And for the few who can, it is unlikely that many will make more than their expenses. Money does not improve athletics performance, but competitive advantage may."

Many of the concerns that opponents expressed were couched in hypothetical situations they believed could be damaging. For example, Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, said his student-athlete council believes having players return from professional experience to the college ranks compromises existing college players who have worked their way into playing time.

And Rice University Faculty Athletics Representative James A. Castaneda said the organized-competition rule could set up a bidding war for players who may have competed professionally for two or three years and then have just one or two years of eligibility remaining after the year in residence, creating a situation where schools would have to provide up to four years of aid (in order for the player to graduate) for just one year of play.

But Grant told delegates to focus on the larger picture and not worry about what she called "worst-case scenarios that are unlikely to happen."

"We can't allow a faceless fear to paralyze us into nonaction," Grant said. "We have an opportunity to redefine amateurism in a meaningful way, which from our perspective, provides an even stronger educational framework."

Package deal?

By the end of the forum and throughout subsequent meetings among the Management Council and Board of Directors, several members questioned whether the "one size fits all" approach of the proposals as a package was appropriate. Many who believed parts of the package, such as accepting prize money, had merit and wondered aloud if the package couldn't be separated -- or if some of the proposals could apply only to sports other than football and men's basketball.

While the subcommittee has maintained the proposals are strengthened as a package, the concern is one that is likely to be bandied about within the Division I governance structure in the coming weeks. However, the idea of treating different sports with different amateurism rules poses a potential legal question that may have to be considered.

The proposals, as well as the feedback from the forum, now head back to the AEC Cabinet for review at the cabinet's February meeting. Then the package -- whether in its current state or in a modified form -- goes to the Management Council and possibly to the Board for review in April.

Basketball issues

Though amateurism claimed the lion's share of the forum discussion, there also was a presentation from the newly created Basketball Issues Committee that stirred discussion.

Delegates heard from chairs of both the men's and women's subcommittees, who reviewed recent meetings and presented the direction in which each group is headed. Because the women's subcommittee had met only once and the men's subcommittee had met more frequently in order to address the summer evaluation environment by April 2001 -- a charge given to it by the Board of Directors -- that group commanded more attention from the forum crowd.

Syracuse University Chancellor Kenneth A. Shaw, chair of the men's subcommittee, outlined a package of proposals the group had developed in November that would overhaul the NCAA's current summer structure in men's basketball.

According to Shaw, the proposals would:

Enhance the educational mission for student-athletes;

Reduce unwanted influences in the summer environment;

Increase the accountability of the athletics organizations in the oversight of prospects;

Implement changes to the recruiting process in a cost-effective manner.

The proposals hinge on an upgraded certification program for summer leagues and camps that would have to meet stringent financial reporting standards before college coaches could attend. A strengthened educational component also would be added to the summer events that would improve student-athletes' knowledge of what is involved in participating in intercollegiate basketball.

In addition, the package would establish a 20-day period for evaluation (July 8-27) and permit coaches to contact prospects at the end of the prospect's sophomore year in high school, earlier than currently is allowed.

Shaw hailed the package as one that would bring "sunshine" to the summer evaluation period and the financial relationships within the events.

The basketball proposals will be on the Management Council's agenda for the first time in April.

Amateurism proposals

A list of the proposals included in the amateurism deregulation package:

Pre-enrollment proposals

No. 99-106 -- States that prospects who do not enroll full-time in college at their first opportunity after high-school graduation will lose a season of eligibility for each year they participated in organized competition. Those individuals also must fulfill a year in residence.

No. 99-107 -- Allows prospects to enter a pro draft and be drafted without affecting collegiate eligibility.

No. 99-108 -- Allows prospects to sign a contract or commitment to participate in professional athletics without affecting collegiate eligibility.

No. 99-109 -- Allows prospects to participate on a professional team without affecting collegiate eligibility.

No. 99-110 -- Allows prospects to accept prize money without affecting collegiate eligibility.

No. 99-111 -- Allows prospects to accept compensation for athletics participation without affecting collegiate eligibility.

No. 2000-97 -- Specific to baseball and stipulates that no contact is allowed with a prospect after that individual begins to compete or practice according to the organized-competition rule.

Post-enrollment

No. 2000-48 -- Allows prospects and current student-athletes to accept Operation Gold grants without affecting collegiate eligibility.

No. 2000-49 -- Allows student-athletes to accept compensation for fee-for-lessons under specified conditions.

No. 2000-102 -- Authorizes the NCAA to pay premiums for student-athletes who qualify for disability insurance through the Association's Exceptional Student-Athlete Disability Insurance Program.

No. 2000-103 -- Permits a student-athlete to obtain a loan of no more then $20,000 based on future earnings potential.

Presenters at the Division I forum

Amateurism proposals

Christine Grant, chair, NCAA Agents and Amateurism Subcommittee

Thomas C. Hansen, commissioner, Pacific-10 Conference

Douglas P. Woolard, director of athletics, Saint Louis University

Lisa Dehon, consultant

Basketball issues

Rebecca Stafford, chair, women's subcommittee of the Basetball Issues Committee

Kenneth A. Shaw, chair, men's subcommittee of the Basetball Issues Committee

Jim Delany, commissioner, Big Ten Conference

Ernie Kent, men's basketball coach, University of Oregon

John C. Parry, director of athletics, Butler University