The Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet met June 19-21 in Indianapolis to discuss a number of items, including the recently distributed academic enhancement package that currently is in the comment period.

The AEC cabinet took no additional action on the proposals at this meeting (the group had indicated at its February meeting that it supported Proposal No. 02-22-A, which establishes both a grade-point average cut score and a test-score cut), but noted that the Division I Academic Consultants will review the package -- and the comments from the membership -- later this month. The consultants will submit a report to the cabinet in September, then the cabinet will submit its final recommendations to the Management Council, which is expected to conduct a final vote on the proposals in October.

Another issue the cabinet dealt with at its June meeting was the reinstatement philosophy with regard to amateurism violations. The issue has become complicated as the Division I governance structure has worked its way through the amateurism deregulation package. Currently, in fact, there are several choices on the table for penalties in cases where prospects have participated on or with professional teams, ranging from an eight-game sit-out period to permanent ineligibility. The new standard the cabinet endorsed is a shift from the "intent to professionalize" analysis.

The cabinet supported a reinstatement philosophy from the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee (SAR) that would render an individual "who engages in activities that professionalize himself or herself" permanently ineligible for Division I athletics. Under those terms, however, the individual's actions shall be reviewed under a "reasonable person" standard to determine if those actions warrant the individual not being reinstated for intercollegiate athletics eligibility.

The SAR reasoned -- and the cabinet agreed -- that because the Division I membership recently defeated proposals that would have loosened restrictions in amateurism rules, members desire to have the current rules consistently upheld. An individual who pursues sports as a vocation, even if the individual fails in that pursuit, should not be permitted to compete in intercollegiate athletics.

The SAR's proposal comes with guidelines for determining whether reinstatement is warranted in such cases. Those guidelines are:

1. An individual who enters into an agreement (oral or written) to participate in professional athletics has the burden of proving that he or she should be permitted to compete in intercollegiate athletics.

2. An individual who accepts compensation (for example, prize money above actual and necessary expenses, salary, benefits) shall not be permitted to compete in intercollegiate athletics.

3. (a) An individual who participates on a professional team should not be permitted to compete in intercollegiate athletics; or (b) An individual who participates on a professional team for more than the equivalent of an NCAA season in that sport should not be permitted to compete in intercollegiate athletics. If an individual participates on a professional team for more than one year after high-school graduation, the individual shall not be permitted to compete in intercollegiate athletics, even if the individual has competed in less than the equivalent of an NCAA season.

For example, if a prospect's professional competition occurs within one year of high-school graduation and is less than the equivalent of one NCAA season, the penalty would be a two-for-one withholding condition (that is, two contests at the professional level would result in a four-game withholding condition). If competition occurs beyond one year after high-school graduation, ineligibility would be permanent.

The AEC cabinet also supported an SAR recommendation that enrolled student-athletes who accept prize money be treated similarly to enrolled student-athletes who violate the extra-benefit and preferential-treatment legislation. The committee noted that just as enrolled student-athletes know that it is impermissible to take extra benefits from a booster, they also should know that accepting prize money is impermissible. Therefore, the committee instructed the staff to assess the culpability of enrolled student-athletes who accept impermissible prize money. The change would be effective for impermissible prize money accepted after September 1, 2002.

The SAR noted that historically, student-athletes have accepted prize money and the only reinstatement condition has been requiring repayment of the impermissible money. With the committee's recommendation, an enrolled student-athlete who accepts prize money would be required to repay the money and be withheld from competition based on the committee's December 2000 benefits directive.

Regarding the recommended reinstatement philosophy for prospective student-athletes, the committee noted that enrolled student-athletes should be treated under a higher standard, given the rules education that is available. If a student-athlete were deemed to have professionalized by accepting prize money beyond actual and necessary expenses, he or she would likely not be reinstated.

The Management Council is expected to rule on the amateurism penalty matters at its meeting later this month.

Other highlights

Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet

June 19-21/Indianapolis

Recommended that the Management Council approve emergency legislation to revise the full contact period in men's basketball to conclude October 5 rather than October 14. This would rectify a circumstance in which the October 2002 contact period overlaps with the beginning of basketball practice.

Recommended that the Management Council approve emergency legislation to modify the women's volleyball recruiting calendar to permit contacts and evaluations during a quiet period in states that conduct the high-school volleyball season during the winter.

Recommended that the Management Council approve emergency legislation to provide an exception to the new definition of a professional team (Proposal No. 01-96) to permit student-athletes to compete on Olympic or national teams for prize money as awarded to teammates, provided the student-athlete does not accept the prize money.