The NCAA always has been committed to the welfare of student-athletes.

However, concerns about the safety of football student-athletes during summer workouts reached a boiling point in 2001 after a string of heat-related deaths occurred at the collegiate and professional levels over a two-month span.

While the NCAA has had policies in place that address heat illness for more than 30 years, groups within the Association have redoubled their efforts to craft an out-of-season conditioning model for football to fortify the student-athlete safety concern.

An out-of-season conditioning committee, a working group appointed by the Division I Football Issues Committee, was appointed last spring to gain further insight into concerns related to out-of-season conditioning.

The committee, a coalition of the major stakeholders in college football, was composed of representatives from the Football Issues Committee, the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, the Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports, the National Athletic Trainers' Association and the Strength and Conditioning Association. The group also included Grant Teaff, the executive director of the American Football Coaches Association (AFCA), and NCAA legal counsel. The working group's three-fold mission was to minimize student-athlete health and safety risks, reduce student-athlete time demands and provide adequate preparation time for the regular football season.

The out-of-season conditioning period -- the time before schools begin their regular practice schedules -- long has been a point of contention, particularly in Division I. Critics of the current rules claim the so-called "voluntary" workouts that football student-athletes are allowed to participate in during that time often become mandatory workouts without proper supervision or adequate medical attention.

Those behind the proposal acknowledge that the NCAA always has been concerned with the health and safety issue. They say the model wasn't developed so much as a reaction to last year's tragedies but as an effort to minimize the risk of injury and heat illness, provide student-athlete discretionary time and still adequately prepare for the season.

"The primary purpose of this committee was to ensure the safety and well-being of the student-athlete while still giving the coaches the opportunity to have the student-athletes prepared to play the game of football," Teaff said.

Developing a plan

The working group took a two-pronged approach to addressing out-of-season conditioning issues. In the short term, the group developed an educational campaign and a legislative proposal to impact out-of-season conditioning activities in the summer of 2002. To address the long-term issues, the committee agreed to create a model that ensures the health and safety of student-athletes engaging in off-season workouts.

After meeting through the summer and early fall, the working group developed a model that divides the year into three periods: January 1 until the start of summer conditioning, summer conditioning and preseason practice.

The first period provides the student-athlete with eight weeks of discretionary time, which is defined as participation only in non-mandatory weight training and conditioning activities. Strength and conditioning coaches may monitor the facility student-athletes use for health and safety purposes, but they may not conduct the workout. Per Bylaw 17.1.5.2, student-athletes still would be allowed eight hours per week of conditioning during this time outside of the eight-week period, and spring practice would remain permissible.

Michael Aguirre, a former football student-athlete at Arizona State University who chairs the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, likes the idea of placing more of an emphasis on the coaches to say a workout is "non-mandatory." He said by doing so, it becomes "more explicit that the coaches cannot mandate that student-athletes participate."

From the coaches' perspective, Teaff, a former football coach himself, said, "There is an added focus on the importance of making sure student-athletes know they have a non-mandatory time during the year. This an attempt to make it clear to the student-athlete that this a time when you should not have a coach mandating workouts to you.

"Using the word 'voluntary' puts the onus on the student-athlete, whereas using the word 'non-mandatory' puts the onus on the coach," Teaff said.

Student-athlete discretionary time will be designated by the institution. During this period, student-athletes are not required to attend any football-related activities. Workouts will be at the discretion of the student-athlete. Between the start of spring classes and the end of the academic year, student-athletes will have eight weeks to use at their own discretion.

Legislating discretionary time combats the perception that football student-athletes are involved in football-related activities throughout the calendar year. It also provides them with the opportunity to spend time away from their sport pursing other endeavors.

"This aspect of the model better defines student-athlete free time than what has been in place in the past," said University of Texas at Austin Athletics Director DeLoss Dodds, who chaired the working group. "Student-athletes will now more clearly see where their time is, when they don't need to be working, and when they can take time off and have the opportunity to work at their own speed."

A uniform approach

Summer conditioning will start nine weeks before a school's first permissible preseason practice date. One of the nine weeks would be designated as student-athlete discretionary time. During the other eight weeks, prospects and student-athletes could participate in non-mandatory weight training and conditioning activities conducted by the strength coach for no more than eight hours per week.

That part of the model focuses on giving student-athletes the opportunity to train and condition for the rigors of preseason football practice in a structured format.

The model recommends that all summer conditioning participants be required to undergo a medical examination and that all strength and conditioning coaches involved in weight-training and conditioning activities be required to have cardiopulmonary resuscitation certification. In addition, a member of the institution's sports medicine staff, such as an athletic trainer, must be present during conditioning activities and be vested with the unchallengeable authority to cancel or modify workouts for health and safety reasons.

"The committee wanted to avoid a student-athlete reporting to preseason practice without a background of working out," Dodds said. "The summer conditioning phase of this model allows the athletes to be ready for what will happen to them once they begin practice, which is where we had some health issues in the past."

The final phase of the model is the preseason practice period. Institutions would continue to establish their first date of preseason practice using the 29 practice opportunity formula in Bylaw 17.02.11. However, all participants would undergo medical examinations, and all would participate in a five-day acclimatization period, in which student-athletes would engage in no more than one practice per day.

During the first two days of the five-day acclimatization period, helmets would be the only protective equipment allowed, followed by two days of helmets and shoulder pads. During the fifth day, full pads would be permitted. After the five-day period, institutions may not conduct two-a-days on consecutive days.

On days with multiple practice sessions, student-athletes must be provided with at least three hours of recovery time between sessions and cannot attend meetings or other athletics activities beyond medical treatment and meals.

"Several areas of the preseason practice time period will improve health and safety from a medical perspective," said working group member Bryan Smith, who also is the team physician at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. "The acclimatization period during preseason practice will allow the student-athletes to adapt to wearing the football uniform in high-heat-stress conditions.

"The alternating practice schedule also will enhance student-athletes' ability to combat fatigue while improving their chance of learning during a very stressful preseason practice schedule. From a fatigue and nutrition standpoint, breaking the two-a-day schedule and having some dedicated time to rest will prove to be very important."

Dodds said the model clears up uncertainties within the current rules and will go a long way toward ensuring that out-of-season conditioning activities are carried out in a more uniform manner among Division I schools.

"Overall, the model better refines what has been going on in out-of-season football conditioning," he said. "Because we were a diverse committee, we were able to look at a very complex problem and come up with solutions that will be very positive to the student-athletes."

Little resistance

The model was endorsed in August by the Football Study Oversight Committee and has been proposed as emergency legislation for the Board of Directors to consider in November. The model also was presented to the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet last month. The championship cabinet's playing and practice seasons subcommittee also is looking at out-of-season conditioning issues, but its review is aimed at addressing student-athlete time demands in all sports.

However, after meeting with Dodds -- and consistent with a recommendation from the playing and practice seasons subcommittee -- cabinet members agreed to endorse the working group's out-of-season conditioning model exclusively for football and continue their pursuit of a model that would pertain to other sports.

That was important to Smith, who said, "Football is unique because the equipment has a tremendous hindrance on heat and adds a great deal to the student-athletes' need to be acclimatized and in proper physical condition. That is a big point for football in contrast to some of the other fall sports."

Cabinet members did recommend, however, the following minor changes to the model:

Everyone who helped craft the model agrees it will represent major change in the way football teams prepare for the regular season. And judging from the lack of criticism to the model, the change apparently is a welcome one.

There are minor concerns, particularly for institutions that operate on the quarter system since they may have to restructure their winter conditioning programs. Also, the proposal might cause institutions to incur a budget hit as a result of increased requirements for workout supervision.

However, Teaff, who surveyed AFCA members with regard to time off (discretionary time) and the changes in two-a-days, feels that the model best addresses everyone's concerns -- particularly those regarding student-athlete health and safety.

"This model was created by student-athletes, coaches, doctors, athletics directors and NCAA staff, people who are actually involved in the sport and who deal with all the nuances," he said. "The model covers the whole gamut better than anything I've seen or heard."

The model now heads to the Division I Management Council, which will consider it as emergency legislation at its October 21-22 meeting. If the model gains endorsement there, as well as from the Board of Directors October 31, it would become effective January 1, 2003.

If the Board is reluctant to adopt the measure without giving the membership a chance to comment, it could consider the matter as emergency legislation at its meeting during the Convention, which would allow for a membership comment period without significantly compromising the effective date.