Over the last few years, I have encouraged a re-examination of the Association's amateurism bylaws. This discussion is important, it seems to me, not because the definition of amateurism is flawed. In fact, the Association's Principle of Amateurism is fairly straightforward. Participation in college sports "should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived" and "student participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation," Article 2.9 of the NCAA Constitution says. That language has changed little since 1922 when it was adopted by member institutions, and it rings as true to the mission of higher education today as it did then.

My concern has been more with how we have applied that definition. The body of bylaws that support the concept of amateurism includes numerous exceptions, waivers and sport-by-sport considerations that have created enough inconsistencies to make the amateurism rules confusing to the membership, media and public. The current discussions have focused on expectations for pre-enrolled prospects and, in a more limited way, enrolled student-athletes.

At the 2001 NCAA Convention, Division II approved legislation that allowed prospective student-athletes before collegiate enrollment to enter their name in a professional draft, be drafted, sign a contract, play professionally and be paid for doing so. If they change their minds, they can return to play as an amateur in Division II by completing a year of residency; they also lose a year of eligibility for each year of organized competition. This past January, Division III passed similar legislation for pre-enrolled prospects except that the individual cannot be paid as a professional. Divisions II and III also allow prospects and their student-athletes to receive Operation Gold (Olympic) prize money and to receive a fee for giving lessons.

In my view, these were steps in the right direction for those divisions.

Division I has had a protracted debate on these issues. Finding a consensus among the division's members has proven to be difficult, and the governance group working on this issue has worked hard to find common ground among sports on how prospects and enrolled student-athletes can or cannot benefit from their athletics talents. For a more complete discussion on the actual proposals that will move forward to the membership, see the list on page 4.

The operating principle for the Division I proposals centers on the notion that an amateur should not profit from athletics participation. To that end, a prospect could enter a professional draft, be drafted, sign a contract, compete with professionals and accept compensation that doesn't exceed actual and necessary expenses. Prospects could accept prize money that doesn't exceed actual and necessary expenses.

Here's what I like about this approach:

In addition, proposals also will move forward that will allow enrolled student-athletes destined for early-round draft picks to obtain a loan of not more than $20,000 based on future earnings potential. Further, there is a proposal for the Association to pay the disability insurance premiums for qualifying student-athletes. Both proposals recognize the special needs of exceptional student-athletes. And all enrolled student-athletes could accept a fee for giving lessons in their sport under specific conditions. The intent is to treat student-athletes the same as all other students who can receive payment for giving lessons in their areas of expertise.

Based on the number of eligibility reinstatement requests we receive for prospective student-athletes caught in the type of situations addressed by these "re-regulation" proposals, many of your athletics programs would agree with this moderate approach. You have asked that special consideration be given to the failed professional, and you have asked that student-athletes be treated the same as other students on your campus.

The will-to-act challenge for you as a CEO is to keep an open mind as the debate on these issues begins. Do they treat all prospects and enrolled student-athletes with greater fairness and equity than the current rules? Do they affirm the principle that amateur athletes should not profit from competition? Do they offer a second chance for young athletes who may discover that the glamour of a professional career is more glitter than gold?

I urge Division I CEOs to contact your conference representative on the Board of Directors to register your support of these proposals.

Division I Statement of Intent