Exemptions to recruiting calendars are nothing new. They are a certainty, in fact, much like the sun rising in the east.

With the 2002-03 academic year, NCAA women's volleyball's newly christened recruiting calendar has debuted. And faster than you can say "bump, set, spike," an exemption is on the horizon.

A piece of Division I emergency, noncontroversial legislation (Proposal No. 02-40) adopted in July has upset some women's volleyball coaches. In fact, coaches are being encouraged to sign and send the NCAA a letter posted on the American Volleyball Coaches Association (AVCA) Web site outlining criticisms of the legislation and calling for an override. Meanwhile, the National Women's Law Center (NWLC), the Big Ten Conference and the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) also have their eyes on the future of Prop 02-40.

Opponents are wondering how the proposal cruised through the NCAA legislative system virtually unchallenged and how it was considered "noncontroversial."

The adopted legislation permits contacts and evaluations "in those states that play the high-school volleyball season in the winter" from January 1 through the Friday before tournaments held on Presidents' Weekend. The rationale statement in the proposal points to a similar exemption in women's basketball. "In addition," the statement reads, "permitting both contacts and evaluations during the quiet period will provide recruiting equity for prospects in the state of Michigan."

Though the proposal sounds innocuous enough, there is some history behind it that opponents believe may not have been clear to members of the Division I Management Council and Board of Directors who passed it this summer.

In Michigan, women's volleyball is played in the winter and women's basketball is played in the fall, counter to the traditional fall volleyball and winter basketball seasons conducted by nearly every other state high-school association, the NCAA and other collegiate athletics organizations.

In June 1998, Communities for Equity (CFE), an organization of parents and students seeking gender equity in Michigan, and two named plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit citing Title IX and constitutional violations on behalf of all Michigan high-school girls. The NWLC assisted the CFE on counsel.

The suit claimed that the MHSAA discriminated against female athletes by "providing more athletics participation opportunities for male students, providing inferior facilities for some girls' sports, allocating more money to support and promote boys' programs and requiring female athletes to play in nontraditional and shorter seasons." The lawsuit further claimed that the scheduling hurt girls' chances of gaining athletics scholarships, playing club ball and receiving awards and recognition.

All issues except seasons were successfully addressed in mediation. The case went to trial in the fall 2001. Though the MHSAA argued that girls and boys had to play sports in different seasons because of facility scheduling conflicts, lack of available coaches and other hardships, the judge found for the plaintiffs. His judgment stated that "...the practice of scheduling only girls' sports, but not boys' sports, in disadvantageous and/or nontraditional seasons sends the clear message that female athletes are subordinate to their male counterparts, and that girls' sports take a backseat to boys' sports in Michigan." The court ordered the MHSAA to bring its scheduling of seasons into compliance with the law by the 2003-04 school year.

A timetable was established for the MHSAA to submit a resolution in compliance with the order. But what the MHSAA came up with failed to switch women's volleyball and basketball and instead moved around other sports to comply. The judge rejected that idea and ordered the association to move women's volleyball and basketball to their traditional seasons by 2004.

It seemed like a done deal, until the MHSAA filed an appeal -- and more importantly, until Prop 02-40 was introduced.

Confusion surrounding Prop 02-40

In essence, Prop 02-40 deals with one of the arguments the plaintiffs made in their lawsuit against the MHSAA. By giving the plaintiffs the recruiting exposure they are seeking for players, it weakens the argument for changing the season, which ironically strengthens the MHSAA's position. The MHSAA already had been granted a stay by the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals on moving the seasons before the Prop 02-40 confusion emerged.

NWLC Senior Counsel Neenah Chaudrhy said that through the exemption Prop 02-40 provides "it seems (the MHSAA may be able) to do an end-run around what the judge ordered." Though she said she believes the court's decision will not be overturned, she said, "I don't think the people who passed (Prop 02-40) at the NCAA were aware of the history behind this."

The implication is that the NCAA might have inadvertently paved the way for the MHSAA to win its appeal and overturn a judgment made, in part, on Title IX grounds. The hasty passage of the legislation also has led some members of the AVCA to believe the NCAA has, in a way, helped the Big Ten and schools near Michigan gain a recruiting advantage.

Proposal's origins uncertain

A letter written by an AVCA board member claimed, among other things, that Prop 02-40 "...creates a distinct and unfair advantage to NCAA Division I institutions that are geographically closer to the state of Michigan," and that "it perpetuates the 'rich-get-richer' problems that exist in Division I women's volleyball."

Though critics believe the proposal was written to aid Big Ten Conference institutions, University of Michigan Senior Woman Administrator Megan McCallister said it had nothing to do with the Big Ten wanting a recruiting advantage or wanting to help the MHSAA in its suit.

"We do not think it is acceptable for a class of young women to not have the opportunity of being recruited," she said.

If not for the exemption, McCallister contends that two years' worth of volleyball players would go unseen during the established quiet period until the court-ordered change occurs.

"I support the change of seasons," McCallister said. "But it is totally unacceptable for these kids to be denied evaluation during that time.

"The exemption is not an advantage for (Michigan). We already know who the top kids are. This affects the tier-two and tier-three kids who can't afford to play club and who need to be seen during the high-school season."

McCallister's involvement might have confused the matter of who presented and pushed Prop 02-40 to be adopted. Carol Iwaoka, associate commissioner of governance for the Big Ten, said that if the Big Ten originated the proposal, it was news to her.

"We were in support of the legislation for the exemption, but it wasn't our proposal that was acted on," she said.

More confusion

While it's well-known that a conference office must sponsor legislation on behalf of NCAA institutions, it is perhaps less known that outside sports organizations also can submit proposals if they can convince an NCAA committee to sponsor it. The MHSAA took that route by sending a letter to the recruiting subcommittee of the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet.

Delise O'Meally, NCAA director of membership services and staff liaison to the recruiting subcommittee, said, "The subcommittee supported (the MHSAA proposal) because women's basketball has exemptions; members felt there was precedent."

That precedent is the same reason Iwaoka said the Big Ten supported it.

Quickly thereafter, the AEC Cabinet endorsed what had become Prop 02-40, and the Management Council and Board of Directors approved it as emergency legislation to be effective August 1, 2002. It was designated as emergency legislation so that it would be in place in time for this year's volleyball season.

Afterward, the AVCA mounted an override campaign. If the signatures of 30 institutions' CEOs are collected, the Board has the option of reconsidering its position on the issue or sending it to the NCAA Convention for a vote. The legislation would stay in effect until the outcome is determined. If 100 or more signatures are collected, the legislation is suspended from going into effect until the Board revisits the issue or sends it to Convention.

But as of October 7, the override deadline, just 14 schools were recognized as having followed the proper procedure for the override, meaning the proposal will not be on the agenda for the Board's October 31 meeting.

Still, the issue is far from dead. The NWLC and MHSAA will be watching closely to see what, if any, ramifications the legislation has on the lawsuit. Volleyball coaches will be watching to see how the exemption affects the usefulness of the recruiting calendar.

More than anything, it's the principle of exemptions that bothers Bonnie Kenny, head coach at the University of Delaware and chair of the AVCA board of directors. "The recruiting calendar is a work in progress," he said. "It has gotten to the point where there is some consistency in the time when people would be out recruiting. The calendar we recommended seemed fair for all programs. That's not the case now with this exemption."

McCallister agrees -- to a point. "I agree that (having exemptions) runs counter to putting a recruiting calendar in place, but this is one waiver," she said.

As for an AVCA argument that the exemption will require coaches to spend more money and time on recruiting, McCallister said: "If you have a recruiting budget, you will come up to see these kids. Now it's just a matter of when during this year can you come and watch them play.

"I am unwilling to have casualties for this war. If (Prop 02-40) ever gets denied, it doesn't affect the university or me. It affects kids."