At week's end on Divisions I and II college campuses nationwide, student-athletes sign a piece of paper outlining the hours they spent that week in countable athletically related activities. By NCAA regulations, the total hours spent in such activities cannot total more than 20 hours per week or more than four hours per day.

But tack on time that it takes to study film, receive treatments in the training room, travel to and from competition and the actual time of competing, and the 20-hour rule seems more like a 40-hour week.

To its credit, the 20-hour rule was an important first step in establishing parameters for student-athletes and their dual responsibilities. To its fault, it may have led to too many restrictions on some student-athletes and not enough on others.

For example, elite swimmers and gymnasts who were used to putting in eight-hour days before college and who have Olympic aspirations can find 20 hours of practice too little to stay competitive.

In other sports, student-athletes find 20 hours sufficient, but struggle with the added responsibilities the rule excludes: hosting recruits, attending booster club luncheons, performing community service and the like.

Dylan Malagrino, chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, said his group solicited feedback on the matter from conference SAACs.

"Many Olympic-sport athletes think that 20 hours is not enough for practice already. But a lot of the football and basketball athletes felt that training tables and study tables should be included in the 20 hours because they have so many time responsibilities associated with their sport," he said.

Student-athletes such as Katie Groke, a former soccer player at the University of Wyoming and the current vice-chair of the Division I SAAC, said one of the biggest and most unnoticed time demands is hosting recruits. "That takes a whole weekend, and it doesn't count in the 20 hours," she said.

Even Division III, which imposes no such limit, is examining the validity of the 20-hour rule. In 1999, the Division III SAAC raised concerns that some Division III student-athletes were spending more than 20 hours a week in athletically related activities; however, it was concerned that mandating a specific hour limit would increase practice time on some campuses.

For 2003, Division III has set up a special series of focus groups aimed at addressing, in part, time demands on student-athletes.

Kary Couchman, a member of the Division III SAAC, said one of the concerns many student-athletes express is that "a 20-hour rule might encourage those coaches who currently don't meet the 20-hour standard to then begin adding additional practice time to meet it."

Each SAAC member is in the process of gathering feedback from the different Division III conference SAACs. A recent survey of 40 Division III conferences sought to determine the desire for greater practice and playing limitations. The data failed to show a definitive opinion on either side of the issue. Couchman said the SAAC will review the study's findings and, in concert with the feedback it receives, formulate a more cohesive position.

In Divisions I and II, concerns about the 20-hour rule are an extension of the perceived "trust gap" between student-athletes and coaches and/or administrators. In continuing efforts to chip away at that problem, the Division I Board of Directors and the Division I SAAC conducted a frank discussion about what student-athletes want to see regarding the time-demands issue.

The Board heard that student-athletes want to sharpen their skills but not sacrifice quality of college life. They want to discourage the membership from limiting their opportunities to practice and play, but they want to encourage limitations on how much of their free time, outside of the 20-hour rule, goes toward athletically related activities.

"The general consensus is that we want to keep (the length of the playing and practice seasons) the same," Groke said. "We just want the 20-hour rule better enforced."

Malagrino pointed out that if the 20 hours are reduced, it does not necessarily mean that students will be spending the extra time on their studies.

In a editorial in the March 31 NCAA News, Division I SAAC members Liz McCaslin and Kelly Sorensen articulated the issue.

"As athletes, we do not have a problem doing the 'extra' stuff; we just want the people who 'assign' the fund-raisers, the recruit hosting and the community service to take into account the demands placed on our time and schedule accordingly," the writers said.

The new working group appointed by the Division I Management Council at its April 2003 meeting will work to determine what is included and excluded in the 20-hour rule, identify methods to educate all constituents about its parameters, and develop a set of "best practices" to administer and enforce the rule.

Jerry Kingston, faculty athletics representative at Arizona State University and an NCAA committee veteran, will chair the group. While he is familiar with the topic through his own interactions with student-athletes and from time served on the Championships/Competition Cabinet playing and practice seasons subcommittee, he declines to predict an outcome.

"The question is not if there should be a 20-hour rule," Kingston said. "It's how do we administer it and enforce it. I have no judgment to make whether we will be able to better define it."

But Kingston says that the committee will stay on task and will likely work the rest of the calendar year before making recommendations to the cabinet.

No matter the outcome, Malagrino said, "We hope it's what the student-athletes really want, not what the FARs and administrators want."