In addition to reviewing financial aid and other legislative proposals, the AEC Cabinet tackled a big-picture issue dealing with licensing and promotions.

The cabinet's agents and amateurism subcommittee met June 9-10 and heard presentations from Division I institutions and a representative of the licensing/manufacturing industry. The group also reviewed survey data from institutional CEOs regarding current marketing and licensing practices. At issue is whether using a current student-athlete's name or likeness for retail products is a bad fit with the Association's current amateurism rules.

Though the majority of survey respondents indicated their institutions do not sell products that use a current student-athlete's name or likeness -- and the vast majority of CEOs indicated they did not favor the practice -- current legislation permits it.

The agents and amateurism subcommittee is pursuing a change in that regard and already has agreed to support a legislative concept that would prohibit institutions, conferences and the NCAA from using a student-athlete's name or likeness for retail sales sales while the student-athlete still has eligibility remaining.

The subcommittee, which will discuss the plan further at its September meeting, also has requested additional information regarding an institution being allowed to use a student-athlete's name or likeness for promotional activities and charitable events as opposed to retail sales. In addition, the subcommittee believes athletics directors should be surveyed about the issue. Ultimately, the subcommittee wants to submit a legislative package for the 2005-06 legislative cycle.

The subcommittee heard from Division I representatives who answered questions about whether the NCAA's current licensing rules should be tightened, loosened or left alone. Panelists included Ohio State University Athletics Director Andy Geiger, University of Connecticut Athletics Director Jeff Hathaway, Miami (Ohio) University Athletics Director Brad Bates and University of Notre Dame Associate Athletics Director Bill Scholl. Student-athlete representatives were basketball players Chris Thomas of Notre Dame and Barbara Turner of Connecticut, and Miami (Ohio) ice hockey player and Hobey Baker nominee Derek Edwardson. Pat Battle of the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) also presented.

In general, the institutional panelists neither favored looser restrictions nor opposed tighter rules. The student-athletes in fact didn't appear to resent the current rules that allow institutions to sell jerseys with names or other products bearing a student-athlete's likeness. Thomas said that he and other student-athletes actually enjoy seeing their jerseys in the stands or being worn by fans elsewhere on campus or in the community. The student-athletes also said they were comfortable not receiving any money from the sale of their jerseys while they were still competing for NCAA teams. (The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee also will review these issues in July.)

But the administrators on the panels were receptive to the idea of NCAA legislation restricting the sale of jerseys with names of current student-athletes, particularly since all four institutions already did not participate in such practices. Notre Dame, in fact, does not have student-athlete names on the backs of jerseys during competition. The athletics directors also did not appear interested in increased revenues should the current restrictions be loosened.

The CLC's Battle, however, indicated interest in seeing the NCAA allow more latitude in the marketing areas, specifically in video games. His concerns centered on the risk of losing business rather than gaining it, though he did project that licensing revenues would increase dramatically under more flexible rules. Battle said video game manufacturers appear to be more and more frustrated with NCAA restrictions, especially since the technology exists to produce a much more realistic version -- and thus a much more attractive and marketable version -- of college football and basketball games.

Subcommittee members acknowledged, however, that the video game market was the one area that most concerned them about college sports encroaching into the professional model, where the entertainment or profit value was more of a desired outcome.

NCAA President Myles Brand urged the subcommittee to consider legislative action.

"There's a dramatic difference between the collegiate model and the pro model," Brand told the group. "Our bottom line is educating students, whereas the bottom line for the pros is making profits. Athletics contributes to the well-rounded education earned under the collegiate model. Athletics is entertaining in that regard, not entertainment as it becomes in the professional model."

Brand advocated using a student-athlete's name or likeness in tastefully done promotions (for example, bobblehead giveaway), but he told members he was clearly opposed to institutions profiting from such behavior.

"I see nothing wrong with selling jerseys with just numbers on them," Brand said. "But I would draw the line at selling the names. I also would not like to see the video market take on more recognizable representation or names on jerseys. We need to draw a much brighter line between promotions and revenue gain. It's a cutting-edge distinction between college and pro sports and it's important that we get it right."