ORLANDO, Florida -- For the second consecutive year, Division II delegates rocketed through their NCAA Convention legislative agenda, adopting 45 of 46 proposals -- including a landmark change in the division's amateurism legislation.

At its January 8 business session, 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.

The only legislation to be defeated was Proposal No. 13, which would have permitted institutions -- after the National Letter of Intent signing date -- to make unlimited telephone calls to prospects who have signed financial aid agreements.

Only one other proposal, one that specified that computer science courses are not acceptable for meeting initial-eligibility core-curriculum requirements, generated any significant debate.

Amateurism

As important as the Bylaw 15 deregulation was, its significance paled compared to the amateurism legislation. Proposal No. 12 represented two years of work by the Amateurism Project Team, the Management Council and the Presidents Council. Tony Capon, a Management Council member from the University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown, called it the division's most inclusive process since it chose to restructure in 1996.

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. The last of those education sessions occurred at the Division II issues forum January 7, the day before the historic vote.

At that time, 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.

Robert F. Kanaby, executive director of the National Federation of State High School Associations, noted his association's concerns about pay for play, pay for victory and tuition reimbursement. But he also acknowledged the inevitability of the legislation by saying, "I feel a little bit like the man at the wheel of the ship that's approaching the final wave in 'A Perfect Storm.' "

Indeed, the membership's questions during the issues forum all were directed at the specifics of the proposal and not at whether it was philosophically proper to proceed. Those questions dealt with the effective date of the legislation and how early signing dates would be treated, the effect of the legislation on transferring international student-athletes, the degree to which the proposal has been analyzed legally, and why certain skiing participation was treated differently from other sports for pre-enrolled student-athletes.

"We've paid very little attention to amateurism in the 100 years we've been meeting together," Wingate University President Jerry McGee told the issues forum. "What we're trying to do with this legislation is to apply some amateurism common sense to pre-enrolled student-athletes, just like we've tried to apply an amateurism philosophy to people who are already enrolled at our institutions."

Bylaw 15

In any other year, the 13-for-13 performance of the financial aid deregulation package would have been the headline news.

Several of the proposals represented substantive change, including one (Proposal No. 19) that will exempt all on-campus employment from both individual and institutional financial aid limits, including employment in the athletics department. As important as it was, the proposal went undebated and passed by a vote of 215-28.

Delegates found only slightly less consensus on Proposal No. 27, which will permit an institution to count financial aid awarded to a multisport student-athlete in either sport in which he or she participates if the student-athlete satisfies Bylaw 15.5.3.6.1 requirements. The proposal was amended to specify that multisport athletes must be counted as specified in the individual's financial aid agreement. The proposal passed, 198-51 -- an 80 percent mandate that was the closest of any vote on the deregulation proposals.

The delegates also approved Proposal No. 31, which will permit individuals to accept educational expenses (such as tuition and fees, room and board, and books) before collegiate enrollment from any individual or entity other than an agent, professional sports team or booster, provided the expenses are disbursed directly through the recipient's high school or preparatory school.

Telephone calls

The Division II membership also took another crack at a proposal that would permit, after the appropriate national signing date, unlimited telephone calls from an institution to prospective student-athletes who have signed financial aid agreements. Proponents said the proposal likely would not burden prospects and would simplify work for busy compliance officers who must monitor phone calls for athletes who have signed financial aid agreements differently than for athletes who have signed National Letters of Intent.

However, the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee persuaded the Presidents Council to drop its support of the proposal by claiming that any legislation that provides for unlimited phone calls is contrary to student-athlete welfare. The SAAC said that, from the student perspective, the rule perhaps should be changed to limit the number of calls provided to prospects who have signed national letters. The students also argued that they have no objection to the unlimited use of other communication, such as mail and e-mail.

The vote was the closest taken on any proposal, failing 116-133, with two abstentions. It was close enough that supporters introduced a motion to reconsider later in the day. That motion, however, failed, 109-127, dooming the proposal once and for all.

Proposal No. 14

The only other proposal to be debated at any length was Proposal No. 14, which was legislation to remove computer science as a class of courses that could be used to satisfy initial-eligibility core-course requirements. The proposal was developed by the Division II Academic Requirements Committee, following a similar action last year by Division I.

The sponsors supported the legislation on its merit, noting that computer science classes at the high-school level have changed over the years so that they are increasingly oriented toward teaching specific applications or computer-related tasks, such as keyboarding. While such knowledge is important, the sponsors said, it is not necessarily academic in nature.

Supporters also noted the importance of keeping Division I and Division II core-course legislation as similar as possible in order to ease NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse administration. Although the Clearinghouse could administer different core-course regulations among the divisions, the service could result in considerable additional expense.

Opponents of Proposal No. 14, however, believed that the proposal served no positive purpose.

Not only would the proposal weaken the core by removing computer science as a core course, Hammond said, it could weaken the math component since it could be satisfied with a traditional math course plus a math-based computer course, rather than two traditional math classes. Finally, he noted that colleges demand academic rigor of their computer literacy classes and that the NCAA therefore should not presume that similar high-school classes are academically unacceptable.

However, Elwyn H. Davis, faculty athletics director at Pittsburg State University, said he had served on a statewide commission that had identified a wide disparity in the academic quality of computer science classes in Kansas schools.

Ultimately, the proposal was adopted by a show of paddles.