If the success of last year's Division I forum is any indication, the 2001 version at the NCAA Convention figures to be even more provocative.

At last year's Convention, more than 300 Division I representatives discussed the merits of a basketball reform package that subsequently was adopted in April. That forum allowed issues and concerns to be aired and helped shape the final legislation that the Board of Directors approved last April.

This year's forum, scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. Monday, January 8, will put forth two topics likely to dominate governance actions in Division I for at least the next calendar year: the amateurism deregulation package and modifying the current basketball recruiting environment. Both topics have advanced from the back burner to the forefront of Division I issues in the past year, and both either have entered or will enter the legislative pipeline and be acted upon in the next nine months. The amateurism package is slated for final action from the Management Council and Board of Directors in April, while the basketball recruiting proposals should be finalized in October.

The amateurism package, which originated almost three years ago as a group of proposals from the Agents and Amateurism Subcommittee of the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet, has been discussed at length already by various Division I governance entities and at conference meetings, but the Division I forum at the Convention will offer another opportunity for open discussion among Division I members to weigh the pros and cons of the individual proposals.

Part of the presentation will be a review of concerns that have been raised about the proposals over the last year, and the subcommittee's responses to those concerns. For example, a basic premise of the package that allows prospects to accept compensation for athletics participation has been challenged that such a "pay-for-play" environment clouds the perception of collegiate athletics and compromises the philosophy of "amateur" athletics.

The subcommittee, chaired by Christine Grant, former director of women's athletics at the University of Iowa, has indicated, however, that the package clearly delineates between a more liberal application of amateurism rules for prospects while maintaining the current restrictions for post-enrolled student-athletes.

The Division I Management Council, which reviewed the proposals during a presentation at the Council's summer meeting, also expressed some concern regarding the "organized-competition rule" as it relates to international prospects, a group that at the elite level is relatively large in Division I sports such as swimming and track. Specifically, the Council cited international athletes who spend one or more years in a club environment abroad and gain a competitive advantage while retaining amateur status upon enrolling in a U.S. college or university. But Grant told the Council that the organized-competition rule would apply to those prospects and thus put them on equal footing with domestic prospects who compete in organized competition after high school.

"It's an example of where our current rules are harsher on domestic prospects than others," Grant told the Council in July. "We're not trying to penalize international athletes with these changes, but to treat all prospects equitably."

The forum will allow for any similar concerns to be expressed, with a panel of individuals who have been involved with developing the proposals available to provide the rationale or explain any nuances of the practical application of the proposals.

Basketball recruiting

Another important topic that has risen to the surface this year is the basketball recruiting environment, an issue taken on by the recently created Division I Basketball Issues Committee.

The men's subcommittee of that group was charged by the Division I Board of Directors to come up with a new summer recruiting model by 2002. After two meetings this fall, the subcommittee has prepared an outline of a recruiting structure that it believes will allay many of the current concerns.

The model is a four-pronged approach that strengthens the certification of summer events, maintains a summer evaluation period, enhances the important role of coaches and attempts to restrict what have been called the unseemly influences on the game.

The certification component, in particular, would require comprehensive financial audits of all summer basketball events, including camps, tournaments and traveling teams. It also would identify those individuals connected to youth sports who have fiduciary relationships with NCAA coaches.

In addition, the subcommittee wants to step up NCAA oversight at certified events and provide required compliance sessions for coaches.

The subcommittee also has proposed a 20-day summer evaluation period beginning in 2002. The current span is 24 days, a total that will be reduced to 14 in 2001. Kenneth A. Shaw, chancellor at Syracuse University and chair of the men's subcommittee, has said the 20-day period is more workable in terms of the NCAA being able to monitor activities and enforce policies, as well as keeping athletes from "wearing out."

Shaw said the package should be welcomed by a majority of Division I constituents, and that the only opposition might come from those who wanted to eliminate summer recruiting altogether, or those who feel that the regulations are too aggressive.

"In my opinion," Shaw said after the subcommittee's December meeting, "the proposals stack up pretty well, but not perfectly. 'Perfect' may be beyond our grasp. Our legislative history tells us that the unscrupulous will always find ways to manipulate our best intentions, and we will always have to close loopholes."

In addition to the men's subcommittee proposals, the forum will include a report from the women's subcommittee, which met for the first time in December. That group so far has focused on establishing a list of priorities to address in future meetings, including marketing and promotional issues, the quality of the game (including what many see as a lack of parity in the game), recruiting issues and student-athlete welfare issues.

Council/Board meetings

In addition to the forum, the Division I Management Council and Board of Directors will conduct their winter meetings at the Convention, with the Council gathering Saturday and Sunday, January 6-7, and the Board convening Monday January 8. The two groups also will conduct a joint meeting just before the Board's meeting on Monday.

Primary on the Board's agenda will be formulating the protocol for conducting a study of football, and appointing the members who will make up the group undertaking the study. The Board determined the need for a study at its November meeting, but decided to wait until January to determine the protocol and appoint the committee.

Some of the issues expected to be part of the study are those regarding membership classification, escalating costs and the quality of the postseason experience. The latter, however, does not include discussion of a potential Division I-A playoff, an issue the Board has made clear it will not take on at this time.

Other items the Board will review during its meeting include a look at the preliminary Division I budget allocations recommended by the Division I Budget Committee for 2001-02. That review includes the allocation of new dollars for Division I initiatives from the new CBS contract that becomes effective in 2002.

The Board also will review issues related to the Confederate battle flag. The NCAA Executive Committee, which meets January 9, is expected to review those issues as well.

The Management Council will hear from several Division I groups, including the Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee and the Committee on Women's Athletics, which will present their five-year budget plans, and the Division I Budget Committee, which is recommending expanded use of the Special Assistance Fund.

The Council also will hear a report from its governance subcommittee, which is requesting that legislation be drafted to establish two-year terms for cabinet chairs and a rotation that would require a Division I-AA or I-AAA representative to serve as chair of each cabinet at least once in every three term rotations. The group also is proposing that the Council issue an interpretation clarifying that a Division I-AA or I-AAA member serving a one-year term as chair of the Council satisfies the requirement specified in Constitution 4.5.3.3.1. Also, the governance subcommittee is recommending that the requirements in Constitution 4.5.3.3.1 and 4.5.3.3.2 regarding subdivision representation for the chair of the Board be deleted.

Neither the Council nor the Board is expected to be voting on legislation at the January sessions. Because the Council and Board consider and act on legislation only during their April and October meetings, the only legislation either group could consider in January would be emergency legislation.

One piece of emergency legislation being proposed is a request to modify the 2001 men's basketball recruiting calendar to allow institutions to conduct institutional camps and clinics during the 10 days in July that currently are classified as a dead period.