One area in which people might think the "more responsive" effort might apply is with Division I men's basketball's controversial "five/eight" rule. The measure adopted three years ago restricts the number of initial counters an institution may have in any one year to five and the number in a two-year period to eight.

Some coaches have felt the rule is too restrictive and would appreciate some of the "more responsive" relief.

The National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC), which believes the rule has created numerous issues for institutions and coaches attempting to field competitive teams after the unanticipated departure of student-athletes, recently appealed to the Division I Board of Directors and the Division I Management Council to consider several exceptions. The NABC recommended that schools should be able to replace scholarships under the following circumstances, provided the school does not exceed the total number of counters:

Death of a prospective or enrolled student-athlete.

Situations in which a prospective or enrolled student-athlete suffers an incapacitating illness or injury.

Cases in which an enrolled student-athlete in good academic standing opts to play professionally or apply for the NBA draft.

Exempting nonrecruited student-athletes from initial-counter legislation, provided they do count toward team limits.

Cases of voluntary withdrawal of an enrolled student-athlete in good academic standing from the team for personal reasons, as determined by an authority outside the athletics department (for example, student affairs), before the first day of classes (similar to an existing rule in football).

Cases of dismissal of a student-athlete from the university or the team for violation of university policy.

During a teleconference in June, the Administrative Review Subcommittee (ARS) supported the idea of granting requests seeking to reallocate the financial aid of a student-athlete who dies. If the request involves an initial counter, the aid would be redistributed the following year, even if that means more than eight initial counters for the two-year period. If the death occurs during the season, the institution would be able to redistribute the aid to a student-athlete on the roster not already receiving aid (leaving the choice to the institution on how it wishes to reallocate the aid). In fact, the ARS recently used this guideline to grant a waiver in a case that previously had been denied.

The group also supported relief in cases of incapacitating injury or illness. In those cases, the institution would be allowed an additional initial counter the following year (which would be nine initial counters over the two-year period and, depending on the institution's numbers, could result in six initial awards the second year).

The Management Council endorsed those guidelines in August to become effective for the 2003-04 academic year.

Rob Aronson, faculty athletics representative at the University of Washington and current chair of the ARS, said the shift in philosophy in the five/eight rule is significant. He said the group -- after denying all 26 cases submitted after the legislation went into effect -- asked the Management Council twice if it felt comfortable with the ARS following the letter of the law. Each time, the Council said it was.

"After the 'more responsive' initiative, though, there was a discussion about whether there were at least some instances where in the interest of student-athlete welfare, it made sense to grant a waiver," Aronson said.

Hesitant on withdrawal

ARS members even supported evaluating situations involving voluntary withdrawal or misconduct on a case-by-case basis, though they stopped short of establishing guidelines for either category.

"It's fair to say that the subcommittee and the Management Council are still a little skeptical of the voluntary withdrawal requests," Aronson said. "There may continue to be an initial negative tendency in considering those requests, because those situations are near the core of what the rule was intended to prevent ('running off' players who weren't good enough athletically but who were academically sound).

"But rather than an automatic rule that says if it's a voluntary withdrawal, too bad, we're willing to look and see what the circumstances are case by case. If someone was clearly eligible and perhaps withdrew because of a hardship in the family or some other legitimate reason, we wanted to leave open the possibility that it was a case that didn't conflict with the intent of the rule."

Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim Delany urges caution in that regard.

"In the kinder/gentler NCAA interpretative matters, the five/eight rule may not be the best place to start," Delany said. "This is a place where we have problems. We have problems in graduating basketball players, in retaining basketball players, and in the transiency of basketball players. We have the rule because we haven't found an adequate way to bring stability to that sport.

"This is not an area where the NCAA has overreached (with interpretations or application of rules). When you start going down the road of rewarding voluntary withdrawal or misconduct, you don't have a rule any more."

Amateurism reinstatement standards

In addition to the five/eight rule, some in the Division I membership wonder whether this newfound philosophical flexibility should apply in reinstatement cases that involve amateurism.

Division I defeated liberalized amateurism proposals two years ago, and the Management Council in summer 2002 endorsed stricter sanctions for student-athlete involvement with professional teams than in years past. Yet some members have appealed in cases regarding international student-athletes, hoping that the "more responsive" NCAA initiative will apply.

NCAA President Myles Brand told Division I conference commissioners in an August 27 memorandum, however, that the new philosophy needed to be put in perspective with the amateurism directive.

"I support the amateurism directive and believe it to be consistent with our value of fairness," Brand said. "The amateurism directive benefits an important group of student-athletes: those who choose to maintain their amateur status. The directive also benefits those institutions that elect to recruit only those prospective student-athletes who are eligible under the directive.

"Arguing for relief through the penalty structure lends itself to inconsistency and subjectivity. Furthermore, to employ a flexible approach to amateurism cases in light of the clear directive from the Management Council would disadvantage institutions that in good faith relied on the Management Council's policy."

Carolayne Henry, an associate commissioner at the Mountain West Conference and chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee, said the committee spent a great deal of time discussing how to approach cases differently based on the "more responsive" initiative and didn't see a fit with cases involving amateurism.

"The committee was quick to note that the Division I amateurism directive should in no way be compromised under a different approach given the time and energy the membership, and especially the Management Council, has dedicated to dealing with reinstatement and amateurism issues," she said. "There are two themes here -- flexibility and fairness. The amateurism directive is based on a fundamental commitment to fairness in treatment of these amateurism cases."

-- Gary T. Brown