The debate about student-athlete time demands probably has lasted as long as the Association has existed. In recent memory, though, the first concrete proof that athletes were indeed spending too much time on athletics came in the form of the then-Presidents Commission's 1987-88 National Study of Intercollegiate Athletes, compiled by the American Institute for Research.

The study analyzed football and basketball players as one group, athletes in other sports as one group, and regular students who participate in extracurricular activities as a third group. In the examination of time demands and use of personal time, the study overview stated, "Student-athletes may be practicing and competing for more hours each week than extracurricular students, but they report less satisfaction with their athletics performance than these comparison students report for their performances in extracurricular activities."

Furthermore, the study showed that basketball and football athletes "spent more time in their sport in season than they spent preparing for and attending class combined." Student-athletes spent about the same amount on athletics as academics and students with extracurricular activities spent less time on activities than academics.

The findings spurred great discussion in the membership. The time between the study's release and the 1990 Convention, where the first major actions at reducing playing and practice season were unveiled, was known as the National Forum, which examined the proper role of intercollegiate athletics within higher education.

At the 1990 Convention, many delegates expressed a sincere desire to reform playing and practice seasons.

President Lattie F. Coor of Arizona State University said, "Indeed, in the AIR study there was a clear consistent cry from the student-athletes: Please allow us to compete actively but please also reduce the time demands."

Tom Yeager, commissioner of the Colonial Athletic Association, said, "The activities that cause our athletes to feel a time squeeze are varied and complex. Our solution must be as creative as these activities that have created the problem."

Proposal No. 30 was introduced at the Convention but soon was criticized as being too narrow in scope. It mainly addressed practice and playing limitations on basketball and football student-athletes. The proposal was defeated to allow for more discussion and more inclusive language.

To that end, in April 1990, Division I-A conference commissioners circulated a series of recommendations that could be applied to all student-athletes in Divisions I and II. It was the framework for most of the playing and practice season regulations that exist today under Bylaw 17.

Those recommendations, and a summit between NCAA Student-Athlete Advisory Committee members and the Presidents Commission, helped set the stage for what became known as the Reform Convention of 1991. Some of the greatest strides in student-athlete welfare have their origins in 1991.

Reintroduced as Proposal 38, the package included limitations on daily and weekly hours spent in athletically related activities, days off, off-season practice and length of seasons. Specifically, Proposal No. 38-E gave birth to the 20-hour rule. The proposal mandated that athletes in Divisions I and II be limited to 20 hours of practice per week, no more than four hours per day in season, and no more than eight hours per week in the off-season. And it required schools to outline the process by which they would track these hours.

Section E proved contentious.

According to the Convention proceedings for that year, Alan Hauser of Appalachian State University spoke to the latter requirement. He said, "This is going to be a logistical nightmare, folks. I don't know how in the world we are going to keep track of this 20-hour rule. I find it difficult to imagine how something so ill-conceived can be placed in the middle of a resolution, the rest of which is so well-conceived."

Jeff Orleans of the Ivy Group said, "We are going from a system of no national regulation of hourly, weekly limits to mandatory daily, national monitoring of every student-athlete in Divisions I and II."

But the University of Iowa's Samuel Becker argued, "One of the things that came out of the NCAA study clearly was athletes' concern about the amount of time being demanded of them. It seems to me that this particular piece of legislation, more than any other that we have considered in these couple of days, does much to bring some sense to all of this. I would strongly urge support of Proposal No. 38."

Proposal No. 38-E was adopted by a vote of 299-28-2 in Division I and 166-24-1 in Division II.

Seemingly counter to reducing hardship on student-athletes, a piece of noncontroversial legislation was adopted in 1994 to amend Bylaw 17.5.1 in the case of multisport athletes. Bylaw 17.5.1.1 allowed the 20-hour rule to be applied separately to each sport in which a multisport athlete competes. In essence, it became a 40-hour rule for students trying to juggle two sports.

In 2001, Division II removed that loophole and upheld a 20-hour maximum total regardless of how many sports a student-athlete participated in. At the April 2003 Management Council meeting, Division I followed suit with a similar proposed limit set to begin in 2004 if approved.

-- Keri Potts

The 20-hour rule and reform

Recent activity and discussion regarding the 20-hour rule and how it applies in the academic reform movement:

In 1999, the Division II SAAC expresses concerns to the Management Council about abuses of the rule.

In 2000, the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics conducts a series of meetings to evaluate and possibly resolve the most pressing issues in intercollegiate athletics. At its November 28 meeting, three student-athletes present to the Commission their thoughts and experiences. A primary concern is the abuse of the 20-hour rule.

In 2001, Christine H. Grant, the former Iowa women's athletics director and a pioneer in women's athletics, in an interview with The NCAA News, expresses particular concern about the 20-hour rule. "The rule is not working," she said. "There are so many loopholes. The 20 hours do not include traveling -- and what about all the hours for rehab and film watching? Is that less than a 40-hour week? I don't think so. And yet, we say that academics come first? We have got to practice that, not say it."

Departing NCAA President Cedric Dempsey writes in his 2002 series of "Will to Act" essays that there is a dire need for administrators to "enforce the 20-hour rule to the spirit of the rule and not just the letter of the rule."

In 2002, the Board of Directors asks the Championships/
Competition Cabinet's playing and practice seasons sub- committee to develop options for reducing time demands on student-athletes. Much of that group's work encourages discussion about reducing practice seasons and recalculating mandated days off. The multisport restriction proposal in Division I also is a product of the group.

The Division I Management Council at its April 2003 meeting appoints a working group to review the 20-hour rule and report its findings to the Championships/Competition Cabinet.