The Division I Management Council finalized details of the new single legislative cycle during its April 14-15 meeting in Indianapolis. The single cycle, a concept the Council approved at its January meeting, is meant to simplify the legislative process without compromising the legislative authority of the Division I Board of Directors.

The new cycle kicks off this summer with the return of the July 15 deadline for conferences to submit proposals (the same deadline that existed before Division I went to a representative form of governance in 1997). That triggers the following chain of events:

The single cycle maintains the Council's authority to act on emergency legislation throughout the year, as long as the proposal is approved by a 75 percent majority (the current standard).

Proponents believe the new cycle will help alleviate confusion about where legislative proposals stand in the pipeline and help address the issue of "disenfranchisement" that has been expressed by various Division I constituents. The new cycle streamlines and shortens the comment period from two 90-day periods to an initial online discussion/amendment period and one 60-day amendment-to-amendment period, which proponents believe will allow the membership to stay more engaged and current with the legislative process.

The system also may revitalize Division I's participation in the Convention, since the Council will take its initial vote on legislation at the January meeting. The sense is that the Council and membership will benefit from the exchange of legislative ideas during the Convention forums and educational sessions, and that conferences will be encouraged to schedule meetings during the Convention in order to discuss pending legislative proposals with their colleagues.

The only significant concern Council members had about the new cycle is that final action in April makes it difficult from a compliance standpoint to educate administrators on the new rules before they become effective in August. In addition, proposals with financial impact would be approved toward the end of the time period in which institutions are finalizing their upcoming year's budget.

In that vein, the Council instructed its governance subcommittee, the group that has shepherded the single-cycle proposal to fruition, to monitor the effect of the April adoption date and suggest future modifications if necessary.

In light of the legislative cycle change, proposals that were up for initial consideration at this meeting and were not deemed to be emergency legislation will be considered in January.

Football conditioning

The legislative cycle was among several issues the Council revisited after having taken action at earlier meetings. Another one was the out-of-season conditioning model in football (Proposal No. 2002-84) that reduces health and safety risks for student-athletes without compromising coaches' abilities to prepare players for the rigors of regular-season play.

The new model, which the Council considered last October and distributed to the membership for additional input, provides specific guidelines for the three primary components of the off-season: the eight-week period after January 1, summer conditioning and preseason practice. The preseason component includes a five-day acclimatization period in which student-athletes would engage in no more than one practice per day.

Council members approved two amendments to the proposal, one that sets the beginning of preseason practice for both first-time and continuing football student-athletes at 35 days before the first permissible contest date (allowing for a maximum of 29 on-field practice sessions during that time), and another that excludes "walk-throughs" conducted after the five-day acclimatization period from the daily and hourly practice limitations for Division I-A institutions.

The 35-day period represents a three-day increase from the original proposal. The amendment, submitted by the American Football Coaches Association and supported by the Division I Football Issues Committee, addresses institutions that would not have had the opportunity under the original proposal to conduct 29 practice sessions.

Since neither amendment substantively modifies the original proposal, the Council approved the revisions as emergency legislation in order to allow institutions to begin following the model this summer.

Student-athlete benefits

The Council also approved emergency legislation to permit student-athletes to receive benefits from the newly created Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund and exempt those benefits from individual or team grant-in-aid limitations.

A total of $17 million will be sent to Division I conferences in August through the broad-based distribution. The fund will increase in value at 13 percent annually though the life of the bundled-rights agreement with CBS and ESPN.

All student-athletes, including international student-athletes, are eligible to receive allocations from the new fund, regardless of whether they are grant-in-aid recipients, have demonstrated need or have either exhausted eligibility or no longer participate due to medical reasons.

The fund is intended to pay costs that arise in conjunction with participation in college sports, enrollment in an academic curriculum or that recognize academic achievements. Allocations from the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund also may be used to supplement the Special Assistance Fund.

Some of the acceptable uses for the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund the Council discussed include:

Prohibited uses of the fund are limited to salaries, grants-in-aid (except for summer school), capital improvements and stipends for student-athletes.

Academic reform

The Council also kept its foot on the academic-reform accelerator, forwarding five proposals to the Board of Directors for adoption later this month. The proposals are:

While those proposals received second approval, Council members considered two other academic reform proposals for the first time, including No. 03-26, which would increase the number of required core courses from 14 to 16 (one additional year of math and one additional year in any core area).

The Council last October adopted an increase in core courses from 13 to 14 as part of the initial package of academic enhancements, but the Board has made it clear it supports the additional increase, which with Board approval would become effective for students entering college in August 2008.

NCAA research indicates that current qualifiers already average about 17 core courses and that the vast majority of Division I institutions already require more than 14 core courses for admission. Research also shows that student-athlete academic performance increased when the core-course total was raised from 11 to 13 in the mid-1990s. Proponents of the increase believe that given the proper lead time prospects will meet the higher standard as they did when it was increased before.

The Council did not support the other proposal, however (No. 03-25), which would require term-by-term grade-point-average checks. In October, the Board asked the Council to consider requiring institutions to verify grade-point averages more than once per year, but the Council believes Proposal 03-25 is too administratively burdensome, particularly on schools that operate under a quarter system. The Board will consider the situation again later this month.

Other highlights

Division I Management Council
April 14-15/Indianapolis