NASHVILLE, Tennessee -- Action on legislative proposals was the order of the day for the Division I Management Council and Board of Directors at their Convention meetings. The Council at its January 11 meeting and the Board at its January 12 session considered more than 100 proposals and amendments as part of the newly created single annual legislative cycle.

Some of the more significant measures that gained initial approval and triggered a 60-day membership comment period were proposals regarding academic reform, financial aid and increased student-athlete benefits.

Four proposals in the academic-reform package -- Nos. 03-112, 03-113, 03-114 and 02-72 -- form the heart of the incentives/disincentives structure that will be up for a final vote in April. Proposal No. 03-112 provides the foundation of the package, establishing an Academic Progress Rate (APR) that measures academic performance for all sports teams on a term-by-term basis. Proposal No. 03-113 puts penalties (disincentives) in place for teams that do not perform according to APR parameters. Proposal No. 03-114 establishes a contemporaneous penalty for poor academic performance by prohibiting a team from re-awarding the athletics aid of a student-athlete who fails to meet academic eligibility requirements and withdraws from the institution to an incoming prospect. Proposal No. 02-72 establishes a Graduation Success Rate (GSR), which is an alternative to the current federally mandated graduation-rate methodology required by the Student Right-to-Know Act.

A key proposal dealing with financial aid also moved ahead. Proposal No. 02-83-A would establish a student-athlete's individual maximum financial aid limit at the "cost of attendance," and it would allow student-athletes to receive institutional aid based on athletics
ability up to the full grant level, plus permit non-athletics aid (for example, academic scho-
larships) up to the cost of attendance. The
proposal emanated from the Academics/
Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet's subcommittee on financial aid and has earned strong support from the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. Student-athletes believe the measure gives them the same financial aid flexibility afforded to the general student body. Current rules produce instances in which student-athletes have to turn down academic scholarship funds to stay within team limits.

The Council and Board also gave initial approval to a measure that expands medical coverage for student-athletes. Proposal No. 03-139 combines the provisions of two proposals (Nos. 98-103 and 03-49) and will allow institutions to pay for a student-athlete's medical expenses resulting from an injury or illness, provided the expenses are necessary for the student-athlete to return to competition. The Division I SAAC also supported this measure.

Other significant proposals to gain initial approval included an amended version of a proposal (No. 03-67) to eliminate foreign tours. The amendments proposed during the Council meeting provide an exception for rowing teams to compete at the Henley Women's Regatta and protects tours that include teams from more than one institution that compete as a combined team. The Council also gave initial approval to an existing alternative (No. 03-67-1) that would prohibit tours only during the period beginning 30 days before the first permissible practice date until the first scheduled contest in the applicable sport.

Another proposal that was approved after being debated during various Division I sessions at the Convention was Proposal No. 03-74, which would preclude an institution from counting a travel day to and from competition as the student-athlete's required day off. The proposal has been debated because of its effect on competitive equity. The Division I SAAC has indicated support, though not unanimous, for the proposal.

Other significant proposals to be given initial approval included:

No. 03-76, which would eliminate the limit on the number of initial counters in men's basketball (in effect, this would eliminate the so-called "five-eight rule").

No. 03-92, which would prohibit institutions from playing exhibition contests against noncollegiate teams in men's basketball.

No. 03-59, which would allow a student to earn one core-course unit in the summer immediately after high-school graduation and before initial full-time enrollment.

No. 03-32, which would prohibit media guides and other athletics-specific brochures from being mailed to prospects; however, those materials could be posted on institutional Web sites.

Several proposals regarding athletics certification were approved as noncontroversial legislation and thus become effective immediately. They include the elimination of the interim-report requirement, as well as various operating principles regarding institutional mission, fiscal integrity, and sportsmanship and ethical conduct.

Summer bridge program

Several other proposals were approved as either noncontroversial or emergency legislation, and they are included in the legislative summary that begins on page A16. One of those proposals (No. 03-138) reduces from five to four the number of home games a Division I-A football institution must schedule against Division I-A opponents during the 2004 and 2005 seasons.

Other proposals made news because they were defeated. One of the most notable was a proposal to expand an existing summer financial aid program for prospective student-athletes in basketball to all sports. The current "bridge" program in basketball allows schools to provide financial aid to entering prospects during the summer term before initial enrollment to better acclimate them to the rigors of college academic life. Preliminary data from the first two years of the program indicate the program may indeed be successful.

The Management Council, however, defeated a proposal (No. 03-15) that would apply the program to all sports, as well as an amendment (No. 03-15-1) that would apply the program only to "at-risk" students, as defined by the institution. The Council also defeated a proposal (No. 03-65) to apply the program only to football student-athletes.

Board members, though, indicated their interest in expanding the summer bridge concept, telling the Council to revisit the proposals before April and providing clear rationale for why the proposals were defeated. Though the Board does not have the legislative authority to resurrect a proposal that has been defeated, it nevertheless can adopt such a measure as emergency legislation in April. While Board members agreed the issue did not necessarily rise to the level of emergency, they did want to send a message to the Council that they were interested in giving the bridge program an expanded role.

Among other proposals the Management Council defeated was a measure to modify the minimum number of conference members required to stage a league postseason football championship. Proposal No. 03-78 had generated media attention but had never garnered much membership support, having failed to gain support at the Championships/Competition Cabinet level in September.