The Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet continued its work on academic reform and supported important deregulation efforts in financial aid and recruiting at its February 19-21 meeting in Tampa, Florida.

In a move that follows a direction taken by the Division I Board of Directors, the cabinet agreed to sponsor legislation to increase the total number of required core-course units for initial eligibility from 14 to 16. Recently approved legislation that becomes effective this August increased core-course totals from 13 to 14, but the Board of Directors has indicated it would favor an additional increase, particularly in light of NCAA research that shows most qualifiers already meet the higher standard.

Cabinet members recommended that the two additional courses include one unit of math and one unit in any core area. Research indicates that the number of courses taken in math is a statistically significant predictor of graduation among males and that the number of courses taken in "other" areas is as strong a predictor of graduation as test scores.

That signaled two things to the cabinet -- that the increase to 16 core courses probably would boost graduation rates, particularly in football and men's basketball, and that the increase would accomplish more than would a further adjustment in the sliding scale. The latter is important since the Board charged the cabinet with considering alternative initial-eligibility sliding scale models to determine whether there was an even better way to maximize graduation rates and minimize disparate impact than the scale adopted last fall. However, research demonstrates only a small rise in graduation rates if the current scale is raised and a disproportionate rise in the level of disparate impact on minority groups. Thus, cabinet members felt the core-course adjustment was a better path toward achieving improved academic performance and graduation without disparately affecting minority and low-income groups.

If adopted, the legislation would raise the core-course requirement as follows:

English 4

Math 3

Natural/physical science 2

English, math or

natural/physical science 1

Social science 2

Additional/any core area 4

Total 16

The effective date would depend on when the Board takes action -- fall 2007 if the Board adopts the increase next month; fall 2008 if the presidents adopt the increase in April 2004. In either outcome, cabinet members stressed the importance of working with the secondary school community in the implementation of the legislation. The cabinet stressed that advance public notice of the effective date will be crucial to its success.

Also regarding academic reform, the cabinet agreed to sponsor legislation to require institutions to certify the requisite minimum cumulative grade-point average for meeting progress-toward-degree requirements on a term-by-term basis rather than only once a year. Cabinet members noted that several conferences already successfully conduct term-by-term GPA checks. Some conferences, particularly those with schools operating on a quarter system, have argued that the term-by-term checks impose an administrative burden, but the Board has indicated a preference for verifying grade-point averages more than once a year to strengthen the progress-toward-degree requirements.

Financial aid proposals

In addition to academic reform issues, the cabinet also addressed -- and supported -- three significant proposals designed to provide student-athletes more flexibility regarding financial aid.

The cabinet endorsed Proposal No. 02-83-A, which specifies that a student-athlete's individual limit is the cost of attendance. That means that a student-athlete may receive aid based on athletics ability up to the value of a full grant-in-aid plus any other financial aid unrelated to athletics ability up to cost of attendance (or the value of a full grant-in-aid plus a Pell grant, whichever is greater). The proposal ensures that every student-athlete would have the opportunity to receive financial aid to cover his or her cost of attendance through a combination of permissible sources of financial aid, similar to the financial aid limit for students generally.

Cabinet members also supported Proposal No. 03-23, which exempts the following:

Institutional academic scholarships awarded independently of athletics interests and awarded in a consistent manner for all students, provided the recipient has completed at least one year in college and achieved a cumulative grade-point-average of 3.300 for all academic work resulting in degree credits at the awarding institution.

Need-based institutional aid not based in any degree on athletics ability and awarded based on federal methodology (for example, methodology for determining Pell eligibility).

Under this proposal, academic awards and other academic scholarships and need-based aid will be excluded from the institution's team limits (but will continue to count toward the recipient's individual limit). The cabinet preferred this new proposal to an existing one (Proposal No. 02-81) that was less specific in the types of awards that could be exempted. Cabinet members believe Proposal No. 03-23 eliminates abuse concerns (institutions "disguising" athletics dollars as non-institutional aid, which could set up recruiting advantages for some schools).

The cabinet also believes the new proposal rewards academic excellence while being responsive to need. Current rules set up situations in which financially needy students sometimes have to choose between participating in intercollegiate athletics and affording the cost of attendance. Some potential athletes have to turn down athletics participation in order to accept the aid that allows them to attend college. Proposal No. 03-23 would give those athletes the same financial aid flexibility that other students have.

The cabinet also supported Proposal No. 02-82, which clarifies "counter" status. The proposal specifies that a student-athlete becomes a counter when he or she (1) receives institutional financial aid based on athletics ability, (2) receives educational expenses awarded by the U.S. Olympic Committee or a U.S. national governing body, or (3) for recruited student-athletes, receives outside financial aid for which athletics participation is a major criterion.

Recruiting deregulation

In other action, the cabinet endorsed a package of proposals from its recruiting subcommittee that has been under review for the last two years. The deregulation package consists of six proposals that simplify the recruiting process, clarify what constitutes an official contact and allow institutions more flexibility in publicity.

The proposals are:

No. 03-31, which permits an institution to release information about a prospect's signing a National Letter of Intent or accepting the institution's written offer of admission and/or financial aid to any media outlet. The proposal also prohibits an institution from purchasing or receiving commercial advertising (for example, print, media, billboard) that identifies a prospect by name or picture.

No. 03-32, which permits an institution to send to prospects only general correspondence, questionnaires, camp brochures, institutionally prepared (nonathletics) publications available to all students, NCAA educational materials and business cards. The proposal permits all other materials (for example, media guides) to be posted on the institution's Web site, but prohibits printing such items from the Web and mailing them to prospects.

No, 03-33, which permits an institution one in-person off-campus contact with a prospective student-athlete beginning April 1 of the prospect's junior year (as specified), and one telephone call on or after March 1 during the spring of the prospect's junior year with subsequent telephone calls subject to current sports-specific limitations.

No. 03-34, which specifies that videoconferencing, videophones and other direct human interaction voice exchange shall be considered telephone calls, and all other electronically transmitted information (for example, e-mail, Instant Messenger, facsimiles) shall be considered general correspondence.

No. 03-35, which eliminates the requirement for written notification of the five-visit rule.

No. 03-36, which permits an institution to produce non-personalized recruiting audio/video presentations, and also make such presentations available via the institution's Web site and send them electronically to prospects.

The proposals will be forwarded to the Management Council for initial review next month.

Other highlights

Division I Academics/Eligibility/ Compliance Cabinet
February 19-21/Tampa, Florida

Recommended that the Management Council modify the wording of Proposal No. 02-23 consistent with its intent to specify that once a student-athlete initially enrolls as a full-time student, he or she must meet the 24 semester hours/36 quarter hour and 18 semester/27 quarter hour requirements before the start of the institution's third semester or fourth quarter after the student-athlete's initial full-time enrollment. A student-athlete who does not meet the 24/36 credit hour requirement (before the beginning of the institution's third semester/fourth quarter following the student-athlete's initial full-time enrollment) may become eligible at the beginning of the next academic term by earning the number of hours needed to total 24 semester or 36 quarter hours during the two previous semesters or three previous quarters.

Recommended that the Management Council sponsor Proposal No. 03-28 as noncontroversial legislation exempting official visits to Division III institutions from the five-visit limitation.

Recommended that the Management Council sponsor Proposal No. 03-30 as noncontroversial legislation to establish a recruiting calendar in baseball.

Tabled Proposal No. 03-15, which permits an institution to provide athletically related aid to a prospect in any sport to attend the institution's summer term before the student's initial full-time enrollment at the certifying institution. The cabinet noted that the current legislation that relates only to basketball was approved as a pilot study in an effort to improve the graduation rates in that sport. The cabinet agreed that the legislation should be assessed to determine if it is achieving its objective before consideration of expanding it to apply to all sports.