The Division I Academics/Eligibility/
Compliance Cabinet has reiterated its support for a financial aid proposal that will address the gap between permissible athletics aid and the actual cost of attending college.

Meeting September 10-12 in Indianapolis, the cabinet urged the Management Council to support 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 came from the AEC Cabinet's subcommittee on financial aid and is part of a financial aid deregulation package that includes four other proposals (Nos. 02-81, 02-23, 02-82 and 02-83-B). The cabinet believes that only Proposal No. 02-83-A should move forward at this time, however, and is recommending that the Management Council table the other proposals until the next legislative cycle. Cabinet members believe that with all the academic reform agendas proceeding through the current legislative cycle, the membership has not had a chance to adequately absorb the implications of the other financial deregulation proposals. However, the cabinet thinks Proposal 02-83-A warrants immediate support.

Cabinet members believe current financial aid 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 in fact have had to turn down athletics participation to accept the aid that allows them to attend college. Proposal No. 02-83-A also would help those student-athletes who have strong academic profiles and who earn extra scholarship money but sometimes have to decline some scholarship offers due to grant-in-aid limits.

Proposal No. 02-83-A 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.

The cabinet also noted that the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee supports Proposal No. 02-83-A. In a letter to the chairs of the Division I Board of Directors and the Division I Management Council, SAAC members emphasized that the financial aid measures would affect student-athletes in a positive manner and would be welcomed as an effort to enhance student-athlete welfare.

The new single annual legislative cycle in Division I positions proposals for initial review from the Management Council in January, then final approval from the Board of Directors in April. The proposed effective date for Proposal No. 02-83-A is August 1, 2004.

The cabinet's meeting agenda included a review of more than 40 legislative proposals that had been referred to the group from the legislative cycle, which began in July with conference-submitted proposals and included proposals that had been held over from the old cycle.

Notable among those proposals were two the cabinet did not support regarding financial aid for prospective student-athletes during their summer term before initial enrollment. One (Proposal No. 03-15) would expand the provision of aid during the summer term before initial enrollment for prospective student-athletes in men's basketball to all sports, while the other (Proposal No. 03-65) would apply only to football.

Similar legislation was adopted in men's basketball two years ago as part of a five-year pilot study to determine if allowing the earlier aid would acclimate prospects more rapidly into the academic system and thus positively affect graduation rates, which have been poorer in men's basketball than in other sports.

Concern about 03-15

The cabinet's subcommittees on financial aid and continuing eligibility supported the concept of expanding the provision to all sports, but members were uncomfortable with Proposal 03-15 as presented. Rather, they preferred an amendment that would allow institutions to provide aid in the first summer term to prospects who were academically "at risk," as defined by the institution. Further, the subcommittees supported delaying the effective date to August 1, 2005, to give institutions time to budget for the change.

When the amendment was presented to the full cabinet, however, some members worried that the legislation was premature since the five-year pilot in men's basketball had not run its course, and the data so far have been inconclusive as to whether the provision would dramatically increase graduation rates. Some cabinet members also worried about incon-sistencies among institutions in defining "at risk" prospects. Proponents from the financial aid subcommittee proposed creating guidelines to help institutions arrive at a more common definition, and they thought the summer aid concept was important enough to warrant immediate rather than delayed consideration. Some members in fact noted that anecdotal information indicated that the concept was working in men's basketball. Nonetheless, the full cabinet defeated the amendment after a thorough debate.

The cabinet also voted not to support Proposal No. 03-65, which would apply the summer aid concept to football prospects.

Other action

Among legislation garnering cabinet support was Proposal No. 03-49, which would allow institutions to pay for a student-athlete's medical expenses resulting from injury or illness as long as the expenses are necessary for the student-athlete's return to competition. The proposal, which originated from the recently created NCAA Risk Management and Insurance Task Force, is more permissive than current rules limiting institutions to pay for medical treatment only for athletically related injuries.

The matter is important since two related proposals that date back to 1998 and 1999 have failed to make any headway through the governance structure. One, Proposal No. 98-103, would allow institutions to pay necessary surgical expenses for student-athletes who are enrolled in the school's summer term and participating in voluntary summer physical activities. The other, Proposal No. 99-68, extended the benefit to the academic year and included non-athletically related injury or illness.

Cabinet members, however, believe Proposal No. 2003-49 is a cleaner, simpler version that best addresses the issue.

Another proposal earning cabinet support was an amended version of Proposal No. 03-14, which would extend the so-called tennis rule to swimming and diving. The proposal stems from an increase in the number of swimming and diving prospects who intentionally delay graduation from high school, or the international equivalent, then train at the elite/professional level, thereby delaying timely matriculation at a collegiate institution.

The proposal provides prospective student-athletes in swimming and diving (and tennis) with one year after the high-school graduation date of their class (as determined by the first year of high-school enrollment) or the international equivalent to enroll in college and retain four years of eligibility. The AEC Cabinet amended the proposal to state that graduation from high school or secondary school shall be based on the student-athlete's prescribed educational path in his or her country.

Other highlights

Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet
September 10-12/Indianapolis

Agreed to sponsor noncontroversial legislation to allow NCAA men's basketball coaches to attend NBA predraft camps when those camps occur outside a contact or evaluation period and prospective student-athlete are in attendance.

Asked the Management Council to appoint an ad hoc group to evaluate possible legislation that would apply the one-time transfer exception to all sports (current legislation precludes student-athletes in men's and women's basketball, football and men's ice hockey from using this provision). The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee has supported the concept, but the Management Council referred the matter to the AEC Cabinet and other appropriate groups within the governance structure for suggestions. The cabinet recommends that the ad hoc group include coaches, student-athletes and campus administrators.

Did not support Proposal 2003-89, which would specify that a student-athlete who does not enroll at an NCAA, NAIA or NJCAA institution by his or her 20th birthday shall fulfill an academic year in residence on enrollment at the certifying institution and shall lose a season of competition for each year after his or her 20th birthday. The proposal earned conflicting views -- support from the AEC Cabinet's subcommittee on continuing eligibility and opposition from the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee. The full cabinet denied the measure based on the fact that the proposal would amend the tennis rule to strictly an age-based rule and have no educational or competitive tie.

Supported a revision to the initial-eligibility waiver procedures to require the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse to process all final certifications of initial eligibility for all student-athletes who have been home-schooled for all or a portion of high school. Cabinet members believe the revised process will eliminate waivers for each home-school case and reduce the burden on member institutions. The procedure may also result in home-schooled student-athletes receiving an earlier final certification decision.

Issued a directive regarding the standard of review for progress-toward-degree waivers (in anticipation of waiver requests from institutions regarding the new six academic credit hours per term requirement effective this year). The guiding principle for the directive states that institutions seeking waivers must "meet a high threshold for approval" and must present "objective evidence that the mitigating circumstances are compelling for the request to be granted."