DENVER, Colorado -- After almost three years of deliberation, Division I has reached at least a preliminary outcome on its complex amateurism deregulation package. The Division I Management Council has reviewed several versions of the deregulation package in the years since it was first developed by the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet's Agents and Amateurism Subcommittee, but the Council finally found one it liked during its April 8-9 legislative meeting.

The package the Council approved and forwarded to the Board of Directors for adoption is not as liberal as the one Division II adopted at the 2001 NCAA Convention, but it does provide some relief for pre-enrolled student-athletes that they didn't have before.

The Division I package defines what constitutes a professional team and restricts prospects' involvement with those teams. The package also permits prospects to enter a draft and be drafted, and receive prize money (not to exceed expenses) in open competition, but it does not allow prospects to sign professional contracts, receive a salary or compete with professionals.

The package comes after years of work to figure out ways to address what had been a steady increase in the number of eligibility appeals regarding amateurism. It was that increase that signaled Division I's desire to consider liberalizing its amateurism rules, but the initial proposals submitted two years ago apparently represented too much change, and Division I members asked that they be reworked. That anxiety continued to exist even as recently as January, when Division I members remained concerned that the package in its current state left too many loopholes.

The Agents and Amateurism Subcommittee, which has used many drawing boards during the course of the project, went back one more time and established the benchmark of "actual and necessary expenses" as a common thread that tied many of the proposals together. That seemed to satisfy a significant number of Council members, who approved several proposals that included that language.

One of them is Proposal No. 01-96, which defines a professional team as one that either declares itself to be professional or provides any of its players more than actual and necessary expenses. Prospects who participate on such teams would be declared ineligible and would have to go through the reinstatement process. Another proposal (No. 01-97), which renders individuals who participated on professional teams ineligible whether they knew the team was professional or not, also was approved.

"The Council determined that it does not want prospective student-athletes playing on professional teams," said Council Chair Percy Bates, who also is the faculty athletics representative at the University of Michigan. "The new definition gives us a clearer picture of what a professional team is."

Other proposals the Council approved are No. 99-107, which allows prospects to enter a draft and be drafted without jeopardizing athletics eligibility (as long as they do not sign a contract, receive a salary or obtain an agent); No. 99-110-2, which allows prospects to accept prize money based on place finish up to actual and necessary expenses; and No. 2000-47, which permits prospects to receive educational expenses to attend a high school or preparatory school if the funds are disbursed by the school and not provided by an agent, athletics representative or professional sports team.

The Council, however, also approved a new organized-competition rule (Proposal No. 99-106 as amended), which says that individuals who participate in organized competition for no more than one year after high school and who receive no more than actual and necessary expenses lose one year of eligibility and are required to spend an academic year in residence after they enroll at a collegiate institution.

Complicating the issue is the Council's defeat of a key proposal -- by one vote -- that would have allowed prospects to compete with professionals as long as they do not receive more than actual and necessary expenses (Proposal No. 99-109). Without that proposal in place, individuals who participate on a professional team (as defined by Proposal No. 01-96), would be ineligible by virtue of having competed with professionals.

That may leave the Council with some unfinished business, since the organized-competition rule is not entirely consistent with the new prohibition regarding participation on a professional team.

Other amateurism proposals the Council did not support were No. 99-108, which would have allowed prospects to sign professional contracts, and No. 99-111, which would have allowed prospects to receive compensation for athletics competition. The group also defeated amendments that would have excluded men's and women's basketball from most of the amateurism proposals.

The Division I Board of Directors, which meets April 25, will review the package.

The Management Council, which next meets in July, also must decide about another measure that has ramifications on the amateurism package. In October, the Council issued a directive regarding international basketball student-athletes that established a maximum eight-game sit-out period for those student-athletes who had participated on professional teams. At the Denver meeting, the Council considered a "sunset" clause that would have set an end date to that directive, but the group deferred a decision on the matter until July. That in effect leaves several choices on the table for those prospects who participated on professional teams -- including a maximum of eight games per the October directive and apparent permanent ineligibility per the adoption of Proposal No. 01-96.

Academic enhancements

With amateurism at least in the rear-view mirror, the Council turned its attention to a comprehensive package of academic enhancements that are designed to maximize graduation rates while minimizing disparate impact on various constituent groups.

The package is the culmination of two years of study and review by the NCAA Academic Consultants, who were appointed by the Board to develop recommendations that would enhance academic performance for enrolled student-athletes, particularly in graduation rates, something the Board always has coveted.

The package revises both the Association's initial- and continuing-eligibility requirements. The initial-eligibility component includes three alternatives regarding the NCAA's current sliding scale. One proposal (No. 02-22-A) maintains the current 2.000 high-school core grade-point average requirement and moves the test-score cut from the current 820 SAT to 620 (which matches the two standard deviations of the GPA cut). The Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet has endorsed this model. A second proposal (No. 02-22-B) eliminates the test-score cut, while a third (No. 02-22-C) eliminates both cuts by establishing a full sliding scale. All three initial-eligibility proposals increase the number of core courses from 13 to 14, and they also eliminate all references to partial qualifiers.

The Council approved all three alternatives to provide opportunity for membership comment before the selection of a standard in October.

The revised continuing-eligibility standards would emphasize progress toward degree by increasing the amount of coursework to be completed at various benchmarks in a student-athlete's college tenure. Specifically, Proposal Nos. 02-23, 02-24 (A and B) and 02-26:

Require student-athletes to complete a minimum of 24 semester/36 quarter hours before the start of their second academic year with at least 90 percent of the institution's overall cumulative grade-point average required for graduation.

Reduce the number of remedial and noncredit credit hours permissible for continuing-eligibility purposes.

Require student-athletes to complete 40-60-80 percent of the course requirements in the student's degree program by the start of their third, fourth and fifth year, respectively. Additionally, student-athletes entering their third year must have 100 percent of the grade-point average for graduation in their degree program.

Require student-athletes to complete a minimum of six semester/
nine quarter hours per regular term of enrollment and a minimum of 18 semester/27 quarter hours during the regular academic year.

The Academic Consultants believe that the new "progress-toward-degree" standards would ensure that student-athletes would be poised to graduate by the end of their fifth academic year, something the current requirements do not necessarily guarantee.

As was the case with those who developed the amateurism deregulation package, the Academic Consultants have taken pains to present the draft proposals at length to various NCAA governance groups before the Management Council's initial consideration. The proposals also were a primary focus of the Division I forum at the January NCAA Convention. Council members felt comfortable enough with the package that they voted to endorse it in its entirety and distribute the proposals to the membership for comment. While endorsement of the entire package might seem unusual since the package contains proposals that have alternative choices, it does indicate that the Council has embraced the idea of at least some significant measure of academic enhancement.

"This initial endorsement certainly means the Council intends to make significant changes to academic requirements for incoming freshmen and our student-athletes to enhance the educational experience of our student-athletes," Bates said. "The Council will review membership reactions to the proposals, which includes three alternative proposals for the appropriate test scores and the number of core courses for initial-eligibility standards, when the proposals receive final consideration in October."

The proposed effective date for the package is August 1, 2003 (student-athletes entering on or after that date could meet either the proposed or current standard; student-athletes entering on or after August 1, 2005, would be required to meet the new standard).

Football issues

The Council discussed health and safety issues pertaining to summer voluntary workouts, particularly in football, in light of three recent cases in which student-athletes have died while participating in off-season workouts. The Council endorsed an educational campaign to heighten awareness of issues surrounding out-of-season conditioning, including the impact of nutritional supplements, medications/
drugs, existing medical conditions, acclimatization, hydration and clothing/equipment on student-athletes participating in strenuous workouts.

The Council also asked the Board to adopt emergency legislation that for the summer of 2002 will permit football prospective student-athletes who have signed a National Letter of Intent to engage in voluntary summer workouts conducted by an institution's strength and conditioning coach. (The legislation also applies to prospects at institutions that do not participate in the National Letter of Intent program and who have been admitted or provided an offer of financial aid.) In addition, institutions may finance medical expenses for those prospects who sustain injuries while participating in summer voluntary workouts conducted by the strength and conditioning coach.

Current legislation allows strength and conditioning coaches to attend the workouts of prospects for safety purposes, but not conduct them. The Council believes that allowing the strength and conditioning coach to conduct the sessions enhances the safety component. Council members did not support an amendment that would have applied the legislation to all sports, nor did they support a substitute proposal that would prohibit incoming prospects from participating in summer voluntary workouts altogether.

The emergency legislation applies only to summer voluntary workouts conducted in 2002; however, a subcommittee composed of members of various NCAA committees will continue to monitor health and safety issues pertaining to off-season conditioning. That group will forward any pertinent legislative changes through the governance structure and the normal legislative process.

In another football-related matter, the Council approved a recommendation to the Board that would, on a one-year trial basis in 2002, permit Division I-A football institutions to satisfy bowl-eligibility requirements with a 6-6 record. The group also voted to delete the restriction that limits the number of bowls to no more than 26 during the 2001-02 and 2002-03 seasons. Both proposals will be forwarded to the Board for consideration. The latter has been opposed by the Football Study Oversight Committee.

Other highlights

Division I Management Council
April 8-9/Denver

Supported budget requests for 2002-03 and 2003-04 from the Championships/Competition Cabinet, including bracket expansion in softball (from 48 to 64 teams), men's lacrosse and men's ice hockey (12 to 16 teams each). The requests also include a proposal for the Division I Women's Basketball Committee to select predetermined sites for the women's basketball championship first and second rounds beginning with the 2003 championship. The Council also discussed the establishment of two annual Division I regional leadership conferences, which is included among budget requests for the 2003-04 academic year. Budget recommendations will be considered by the Board at its April 25 meeting.

Gave initial approval to a proposal that would permit a Division I-A or I-AA football student-athlete to enter a professional draft and resume intercollegiate eligibility if he declares his intention to return within 72 hours after the deadline to declare intention to enter the draft. The Council did not support a proposal that would have allowed an enrolled basketball student-athlete to enter a professional draft, be drafted and declare intention to resume intercollegiate competition. The current rule allows a student-athlete to enter the draft and resume competition if he or she is not drafted.

Gave initial approval to a proposal that would exempt a student-athlete's on- and off-campus employment earnings from both individual and institutional financial aid limits. This proposal essentially would remove the current $2,000 earnings cap.

Voted to recommend that the Board remove the current membership moratorium relating to the election of new, provisional and active Division I members that desire to reclassify.

Issued an official interpretation regarding Proposal No. 01-54 (financial disclosure of relationships between institutions and their men's basketball coaches and entities/individuals involved in the coaching, counseling, advising and/or sponsoring of nonscholastic traveling teams or players) stating that the relationships will be disclosed, but the value of those relationships will not be publicly released. The Council also expressed concerns that the forms being used to collect the information do not match the intent of the legislation. The Council directed the NCAA basketball event certification staff to immediately recall the current form, then simplify it so that institutions provide the minimum amount of information to comply with the legislation in the first year.

Gave final approval and forwarded to the Board proposals that enhance Division I-A membership criteria. The criteria, which would become effective August 1, 2004, specify that a Division I-A institution: (1) provide an average of at least 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of football grants-in-aid per year over a rolling two-year period (76.5 is 90 percent of the current 85 grants-in-aid limit in football); (2) annually participate in a minimum of five regular-season home contests against Division I-A opponents; (3) sponsor a minimum of 16 varsity sports, with a minimum of six varsity sports for men and a minimum of eight varsity sports for women; (4) annually offer a minimum of 200 athletics grants-in-aid or expend at least $4 million on athletics grants-in-aid to student-athletes (service academies are exempt from the financial aid regulations); and (5) annually demonstrate an average actual attendance of 15,000 for all home games.

Gave initial approval to a proposal that defines a Division I-A conference. The proposal would become effective August 1, 2005.

Forwarded recommendations to the Board that would establish requirements for new members that join Division I or for current NCAA members to reclassify to Division I.