If attendance at the Division I forum could be used as a benchmark, it would seem that the division's interest in the annual Convention -- something that has been questioned since restructuring -- is growing. The annual forum, expected to be well-attended again this year, is gaining momentum as a setting for a meaningful exchange of ideas on pertinent matters.

The forums at the past two Conventions have allowed Division I to gauge the membership's pulse on basketball reform and amateurism, and this year's session figures to be no different as another fundamental issue awaits reaction.

The topic du jour for the 2002 forum is a review of eligibility standards and whether Prop 16 -- Division I's current measure of initial eligibility -- should be changed.

As with past broad philosophical topics, the Prop 16 review stems from a small group appointed to study the issue intensely before submitting recommendations to the structure. The Division I Working Group to Study Basketball Issues and the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet's Agents and Amateurism Subcommittee did just that over the past three years, and their work has led to -- at least in the case of basketball -- significant legislative change.

Now, the group working on Prop 16 review, the NCAA Academic Consultants, is ready to engage the Division I membership in an exchange of ideas about whether there is a more efficient way to provide prospects access to college, and then after doing so, providing continuing-eligibility standards that put student-athletes in better position to graduate.

The consultants, appointed by the Board of Directors two years ago, have been looking at ways to balance what many college administrators believe are the two most important goals for prospective student-athletes -- access and graduation. The group has conducted its review even through a period of litigation during which Prop 16 was challenged. But now that the Cureton lawsuit has been decided in the NCAA's favor, the consultants have been able to move forward with what they believe are significant improvements to the system.

What they will be presenting at the Division I forum is what's being called a "seamless" model of eligibility where high-school variables are used to predict first-year success in college, and then early college success is used to predict graduation. The model also installs academic mileposts or benchmarks that student-athletes must meet in order to compete and demonstrate progress toward graduation.

In effect, the model uses in-college variables, rather than just high-school variables, to predict college graduation. In addition, the academic mileposts would enhance student-athletes' progress toward graduation, particularly in the first two years, which many believe are the most critical in the academic life of collegiate student-athletes.

Change in thinking

As with the basketball and amateurism packages that preceded it, the eligibility model represents a significant change in thinking for many athletics administrators. Some already have resisted the changes because they interpret them as a lowering of initial-eligibility standards. Others, though, see the model as a way to improve access, reduce disparate impact and more accurately predict graduation, something college presidents have wanted to do for some time.

Charles Harris, who chairs the Division I Management Council and who will moderate the Division I forum, said he thinks the forum is a perfect opportunity for the Division I membership to learn about the proposals and provide feedback on how they might best be tailored to achieve their intended outcome.

Harris, the commissioner of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference, heard a mixed reaction as the eligibility model was presented to the Management Council earlier this year. He said the proposals are in an educational stage right now and that it will take time for people to really decide where they stand.

"I'm not sure there's a high level of understanding about the proposals just yet among all Division I members," he said. "And at first glance, some people who have heard the presentation think they make sense, while others think we're beating a retreat for reasons that are too vague."

Harris said the forum may shed the necessary light on how the consultants should proceed.

"I'm optimistic that something good can come from this," he said. "I hope delegates engage all the issues so as to assist the consultants and staff in creating a legislative platform that can be embraced by the membership."

Division I reform

Though the discussion of eligibility standards may be the forum's main course, the appetizers are appealing, too.

The session will kick off with an introduction of the latest group to tackle Division I reform. The Board of Directors has appointed an eight-member subcommittee, chaired by Rutgers President Francis Lawrence, to develop a conceptual and visionary framework for the strategic direction of the division, including an examination of the economic and academic tug-and-pull on big-time college sports, and whether measures can be taken to keep college athletics participation as an integral part of the overall educational experience.

Lawrence and Board of Directors Chair Brit Kirwan of Ohio State University will address the forum audience about the new group, which will have conducted its second in-person meeting the day before. Lawrence and Kirwan are expected to convey the message that this new group, through the Board of Directors, will be developing the parameters by which future reform legislation will be created. In other words, the group will be providing a more "top-down" approach to developing a reform agenda over the coming years.

The forum also will include an update from the Football Study Oversight Committee (FSOC), a group also appointed by the Board to review, among other things, financial issues, membership criteria and postseason concerns in football.

Charles Wethington, who chairs the FSOC, will lead a discussion of proposed changes in Division I-A institutional membership criteria, as well as a study the group has undertaken to determine spending trends in Division I football.

The membership criteria, which are scheduled to be reviewed a final time by the Management Council and Board of Directors in April 2002, would set parameters for Division I-A membership for scholarships, scheduling and attendance in football, as well as parameters for overall sports sponsorship and grants-in-aid expenditures.

Council/Board meetings

In addition to the forum, the Division
I Management Council and Board of Directors will conduct their winter meetings at the Convention, with the Council gathering Saturday, January 12, and the Board convening Monday January 14. The two groups also will conduct a joint meeting just before the Board's meeting on Monday. Also, the Council will meet with the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee Sunday morning.

Primary on the Board's agenda will be a review of progress made by Lawrence's reform task force. The group is expected to have developed a mission statement and vision by then, and the group also will be in position to talk further about a baseline economic study that is being conducted to determine why Division I institutions spend what they do on football and basketball. The study, which is expected to be completed within a year, is using the 18 institutions represented by Board members for the initial sample pool, and financial officers from each institution are being asked to assist in the study.

The Management Council agenda will be dominated by discussion items since the January meeting does not involve a review of proposed legislation. Topics that the Council is expected to delve into include Division I's participation at the Convention, as well as the issue of academic standards that will be highlighted during the forum.

The group also will take a look at preliminary budget requests for 2002-03 and 2003-04, as well as the newly created student-athlete opportunity fund, which was established to coincide with the start of the new television contract with CBS. The Council is expected to discuss appropriate uses for the new fund