Board members were enthusiastic about the proposals, though the prohibition of private or chartered airplanes did generate some debate. That particular proposal also has been the most talked-about in the Division I membership. Some Board members pointed out that various coaches have said the measure might have unintended consequences for institutions that are not in close proximity to a major airport, or for prospects who live in rural areas. That concern did not carry the day, however, as the Board defeated a motion to place that proposal into the legislative cycle rather than adopt it as emergency legislation.

"There are legitimate concerns from institutional personnel in rural areas that may feel disadvantaged by a restriction on private or chartered planes," said Board Chair Robert Hemenway, chancellor of the University of Kansas. "On the other hand, there also is a general feeling that the use of private planes in the past has contributed to the culture of entitlement and perhaps has led to an unfair advantage for those institutions using the planes. In the end, the Board felt the need to establish the proposal as a baseline and move forward. Certainly, we can monitor the effects of this legislation and consider amendments if in fact we discover that it creates unintended consequences."

Two additional proposals in the recruiting package were introduced into the 2004-05 legislative cycle. One allows institutions to pay airfare for one parent or legal guardian to accompany the prospect during an official visit, and the other reduces the maximum number of official visits in football and men's and women's basketball from five to four. Because there was ample task force support for these measures but not necessarily a consensus, the task force recommended that they undergo membership review before Board consideration in April.

Board members hailed the entire package, particularly the emergency legislation, as one that will have a dramatic effect on the recruiting culture. They also noted the success of the process used to address the matter -- the identification of a problem, the quick deployment of experts to develop recommendations, and the efficient distribution of preliminary concepts for membership review before Management Council and Board meetings. In all, the process took only about five months.

Task force Chair David Berst, NCAA vice-president for Division I, said members worked hard to satisfy the time-frame commitment made in February when the group was created. "It is reasonably unique that we've been able to take something like this on, distribute concepts, gather feedback and present recommendations to the Board in a five-month period," he said.

NCAA President Myles Brand called the task force a "catalytic body" that was able to develop recommendations more quickly than had the entire Division I governance structure been charged with reviewing the issue.

"This is part of an effort to find new ways to get ideas into the system through our legislative process, and it enables us to bring to our decision-making bodies well-thought-out proposals that come from the front lines," Brand said. "It was incumbent upon us to be responsive to the recruiting concerns. The task force moved swiftly, distributed ideas, obtained feedback and reached the appropriate outcome.

"These recruiting reforms are major steps in the right direction."

Brand noted in particular the accountability piece that requires institutions to develop (if they are not already established) written recruiting policies. Institutions have until December 1 to obtain CEO sign-off, but the policies must at least be on file at conference offices before prospective student-athletes are brought in for official visits, which in football typically begin in the fall.

Membership requirements

In addition to the recruiting package, Board members also dealt with an issue regarding Division I-A membership standards that has raised concerns within some segments of the membership.

In April 2002, the Division I governance structure developed and approved measures effective this month that require Division I-A institutions to:

The last item in particular has become a sticking point for some Division I-A members who are concerned that unusual and uncontrollable circumstances (inclement weather, for example) could in some cases prevent institutions from meeting the attendance bar. There also is an emerging concern about how contemporaneous penalties in the newly adopted academic-reform structure might affect institutions that hover at or just above scholarship limits.

At its April meeting, Board members agreed to revisit whether the attendance criterion in particular would in fact have unintended consequences. The Board also wanted to revisit the penalty structure for institutions that fail to meet the new standards.

After review, the Board agreed to retain the membership criteria, including the attendance requirement, but the group amended the penalty structure to provide institutions more flexibility in meeting the new standards. The amendment puts institutions that fail to meet any of the new standards on notice for one year, followed by a 10-year period during which any subsequent failure to meet the requirements will result in restricted-membership status.

The Board also agreed to a continued study of membership issues. Board member and Kent State University President Carol Cartwright, in fact, who also chairs the NCAA Executive Committee, called for a review of the membership criteria within the next year to determine its alignment with the NCAA strategic plan, and whether those criteria could withstand legal scrutiny.

Cartwright said that in light of recent conference realignments (more than 20 percent of Division I-A institutions have changed conference affiliation in the last 18 months) and the ongoing negotiations regarding the Bowl Championship Series, it is important to ensure that membership requirements align with the NCAA's value-based strategic plan.

"The environment in which we are working has changed substantially in the last 18 months, while the criteria were approved in 2002," Cartwright told the Board. "We owe ourselves as a Board time to look at the membership criteria against the template of the strategic plan -- which also has been developed since the time the standards were approved -- and determine whether these criteria really do represent a collegiate model of intercollegiate athletics."

In addition, the Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Group noted that any examination of Division I-A membership standards should logically be taken in conjunction with a discussion about enhancements for Division I-AA football.

Summer financial aid

The Board also continued to discuss a summer financial aid program it had approved in April. The program allows institutions to provide athletically related financial aid to qualified prospective student-athletes in sports other than basketball during the summer immediately before their initial, full-time collegiate enrollment.

The concept emerged from a membership proposal to expand a program available as part of a five-year pilot study in men's basketball to all sports. The Division I Management Council originally defeated the proposal, primarily because of cost concerns (some institutions could afford to offer the program more than others, which could create competitive-equity issues). But Board members, citing the academic advantages already evident in the pilot research, approved the idea as emergency legislation in April (to be effective in summer 2005).

What remains unsolved, however, is identifying the pool of prospects who would qualify to receive such assistance. The original proposal based eligibility on whether the prospect was defined by the institution to be academically "at risk." Board members in April, however, preferred a different set of parameters and thus appointed a subgroup composed of two Board members and two Management Council members to work out the details. The four-person committee will develop recommendations for Board consideration in October so that member institutions will have time to plan for implementation of the program next summer. The Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Group also plans to address the issue this fall.

Other highlights

Division I Board of Directors
August 5/Indianapolis