After months of debate from various NCAA entities about what criteria institutions should meet in order to be classified as Division I-A football members, the NCAA Football Study Oversight Committee has reached its own decision about appropriate standards.

The recommendations originated with the Division I Management Council's Membership Subcommittee, the primary group the Oversight Committee had charged with reviewing the membership criteria issue earlier this year. The subcommittee's proposal, which retains the existing I-A/I-AA subdivision distinction, introduces Division I-A criteria "enhancements" that are intended to maintain or improve the competitiveness of Division I-A football without altering the existing governance structure.

Those enhancements include a requirement for Division I-A football institutions to provide an average of 90 percent of the maximum number of 85 full grants-in-aid per year (76.5) over a rolling two-year period. The proposal is based on a review of the current state of Division I-A football institutions, which are allowed to provide 85 scholarships. However, because of attrition, they often end up with fewer than that. About one-third of Division I-A schools, in fact, have football scholarship totals of less than 80.

The package also includes more stringent resource-allocation requirements, calling for Division I-A members to award annually a minimum of 200 athletics grants-in-aid. Implementing any resource-allocation standard has stirred debate, since almost any meaningful restriction would require at least some existing Division I-A members to provide more athletics grants-in-aid to remain classified as Division I-A. To allow for some flexibility in that regard, the subcommittee had suggested that a specific annual dollar allocation ($4 million, based on an average per-year cost of $20,000 multiplied by 200 awards) be offered as an alternative method of compliance, but the Oversight Committee did not support that recommendation.

"The committee believes there is too much diversity among institutional profiles to establish an expenditure number as a criteria," said Oversight Committee Chair Charles Wethington, president emeritus at the University of Kentucky. "The com- mittee favors requiring a specific number of grants because that criterion is competitive-based rather than financial-based."

Other recommendations from the subcommittee that the Oversight Committee supported were:

The Membership Subcommittee had proposed an effective date of August 1, 2006, for the new institutional standards, but the Oversight Committee supported an effective date of August 1, 2004. The group also asked that the Board place a moratorium on accepting applications for Division I-A membership until new criteria are adopted.

"The committee believes that any member school that decides to join Division I-A should do so under new membership criteria rather than according to our current standards," Wethington said.

The Oversight Committee's recommendations on membership criteria will be sent to the Board of Directors for consideration at the Board's August 9 meeting. The Management Council is expected to consider the proposals at its legislative meeting in October, and those that receive initial approval will be distributed for membership comment.

Postseason issues

One of those areas is that of postseason bowl game competition, including the proliferation of postseason opportunities, the Association's involvement in certifying bowl games and the financial ramifications for institutions and conferences that participate in bowl games.

Ensures that groups seeking bowl certification would be required to meet criteria that includes revenue potential of $1 million in gross receipts, excluding any revenue derived from contractual arrangements by participating conferences and schools; sell a number of tickets equal in value to the combined contractual obligations of the participating schools; and average actual attendance of 75 percent of stadium capacity over a three-year period.

Supports the "open market" approach to determine the number of bowl games.

Allows Division I-A conferences to negotiate with bowl sponsors to determine participating teams, financial guarantees, number of tickets and other items.

Develops parameters on the number of travel days, size of official travel party and other bowl issues that assist with reduction of bowl expenses.

The certification subcommittee's recommendation came after consideration of several alternate models. Some of the proposals the subcommittee did not support included increasing the bowl-eligible win total from six to seven, requiring a $1.5 million commitment from bowl sponsors instead of $1 million, and placing a limit on the number of postseason opportunities.

The Oversight Committee discussed the subcommittee's recommendation, as well as the alternative models, but deferred action on the issue until its next meeting later this fall.

In addition to postseason bowls, the Oversight Committee will address other issues at future meetings such as methods of increasing diversity in the college football coaching ranks, ideas to enhance Division I-AA football, and a campaign to educate college and university presidents about the financial rami-
fications of Division I football sponsorship.