The first part of Division I's long-awaited academic enhancement package has received a passing grade from the Division I Management Council. Meeting October 21-22 in Indianapolis, the Council approved changes to initial and continuing eligibility that will become effective for the entering class of 2003.

The proposals, which will be forwarded to the Board of Directors for adoption November 1, are what proponents call an important first step to maximizing Division I graduation rates while minimizing adverse impact on minority student-athletes. For initial eligibility, the new legislation (Proposal No. 02-22-B) increases the number of core courses from 13 to 14 and establishes a sliding scale that maintains the 2.000 grade-point average cut but eliminates the test-score cut. Current initial-eligibility rules (Prop 16) require at least an 820 SAT score.

The test-score issue was the only part of the initial-eligibility component to be challenged. Some Council members worried that eliminating the cut could be viewed as loosening, rather than strengthening, standards. The NCAA Academic Consultants, however, have pointed to NCAA research indicating that those student-athletes made eligible by removing the cut are as likely, if not more likely, to graduate than some current qualifiers under Prop 16. In addition, many in that group, often called "false negatives" (nonqualifiers who in fact do graduate) are ethnic minorities. The consultants, and in the end the majority of Council members, saw eliminating the test-score cut as a fairer standard to apply in order to achieve the maximum-grad-rate/minimum-adverse-impact charge.

The consultants, along with the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Division I Board of Directors, favored Proposal No. 02-22-B among the three initial-eligibility alternatives in the package. The two other proposals, Nos. 02-22-A and 02-22-C, advocated a revised test-score cut (620) and a complete sliding scale, respectively.

Continuing-eligibility proposals that had been supported by the Board also gained Council support. The primary proposal (No. 02-24-B) in that package revises the percentages of progress toward degree student-athletes must achieve from 25/50/75 to 40/60/80. The Council also approved an amendment (Proposal No. 02-24-B-2) that requires student-athletes to achieve 90 percent of the institution's minimum overall grade-point average necessary to graduate (for example, 1.800) by the beginning of year two, 95 percent of the minimum GPA (1.900) by year three and 100 percent (2.000) by year four.

There was some support for revising the percentage requirements to 35/60/80 (Proposal No. 02-24-B-3), particularly to accommodate two-year transfers or student-athletes in programs that require significantly more than 120 hours to graduate, but most Council members agreed with the academic consultants that accommodations for such student-athletes might be better accomplished through a waiver rather than through a policy change that would affect all student-athletes.

Other progress-toward-degree proposals the Council approved were:

Future reforms

The initial- and continuing-eligibility components represent the first stage of a broader academic enhancement plan. The next step is to develop a new Academic Progress Rate that would be regarded as a more accurate measure of a team's "real-time" academic success. The new measure, which should be ready for Council review in April, would track student-athletes who transfer from or leave their current programs in good academic standing. Such student-athletes currently are not counted in the federally mandated graduation-rate reports.

Once parameters for such an academic "snapshot" are determined, rewards and penalties may be established based on how well teams meet the criteria. The Board of Directors has charged a task force with looking at whether an incentives/
disincentives package that might include postseason restrictions, scholarship reductions or revenue distribution would fortify academic performance.

Members of the task force are:

The task force has planned a series of meetings, with a preliminary report to the Management Council and Board of Directors in April.

Out-of-season conditioning

In addition to academic reform, the Management Council reviewed a proposal to restructure out-of-season conditioning in football. The proposal (No. 02-84) was developed by a working group that included coaches, student-athletes, medical experts and legal counsel, and had earned support from the Football Study Oversight Committee, the Football Issues Committee and the Championships/Competition Cabinet. While the Management Council also gave initial approval to the measure, it balked at starting the program in January 2003. Some members were not convinced that Division I conferences and football coaches had been given enough opportunity to provide input.

The new model makes student-athlete health and safety a priority and is intended to reduce time demands for student-athletes during the off-season, while still providing adequate time to prepare for the rigors of regular-season play. The proposal provides specific guidelines for the three primary components of the off-season: the eight-week period after January 1, summer conditioning and preseason practice.

One of the issues some Council members believe coaches may not understand is that the proposed five-day acclimatization period (during which only limited contact is allowed) is included in the 29 preseason practice opportunities.

The Council is urging further review of the matter and input from coaches before the proposal comes before the Council again in April. To accommodate such review, the Council amended the proposal's effective date to May 1, 2003.

For a comprehensive look at the proposed out-of-season conditioning model in football, see the October 14 issue of The NCAA News.

Legislative cycle/Convention

The Management Council also heard a report from its governance subcommittee, which had been charged with reviewing issues related to the Division I governance structure. Specifically, the group is addressing ways to simplify the legislative process and re-engage athletics administrators -- the practitioners of intercollegiate athletics -- with the process.

The governance subcommittee report indicated a significant desire from factions within the Division I membership to move toward a single legislative cycle. For example, based on a January Convention, a deadline of July 15 could be imposed for conference-submitted proposals, with cabinet review in September and initial review from the Management Council in October. A comment period would be provided, followed by an issues forum at the Convention. The Council and Board of Directors would then be poised to approve and adopt legislation in either January or April. (The Council and Board would retain authority to consider and approve emergency legislation during their winter and summer meetings.)

While Council members did not take a position on the concept of a single legislative cycle, it agreed to send the idea out as a proposed policy change in order to generate membership comment. The Council also wants to hear from the membership regarding the status and/or timing of the Convention. They believe that while the proposed single legislative cycle may address the current confusion about the legislative process, it does not address the disenfranchisement issue and Division I's low attendance at the Convention.

Toward that end, the governance subcommittee will survey the Division I membership to learn more about the alleged sense of disenfranchisement and the interest in incorporating a voting Convention into the current legislative process.

Both the legislative process and Division I involvement at the Convention will be addressed at the Division I forum during the NCAA Convention in Anaheim, California.

Other highlights