The Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet has asked the Division I Management Council to reconsider legislation designed to improve student-athletes' academic performance by providing them a summer-term head start.

Meeting February 18-20 in Long Beach, California, cabinet members asked the Management Council to reconsider and approve Proposal No. 03-15 (as amended by Proposal No. 03-15-1), which would permit institutions to provide athletically related financial aid to an "at-risk" prospect in any sport during the summer term before the prospect's initial full-time collegiate enrollment.

The Management Council considered the proposal in January but defeated the measure, citing programmatic costs and incomplete data for a pilot program already under way for men's and women's basketball prospects. The Division I Board of Directors, however, indicated its interest in expanding the trial program in basketball to all sports, which Proposal No. 03-15 and its amendment does, and asked the Council to reconsider its action.

The AEC Cabinet reaffirmed the Board's desire, noting that preliminary research regarding the summer basketball legislation indicates "at-risk" participants demonstrate increased credit hours and grade-point average at the end of their freshman year.

Much of the debate surrounding Proposal No. 03-15 and the amendment centers on defining "at risk." Some proponents of the legislation wish to leave that definition up to the individual institution. In the basketball pilot study, "at risk" applies to those prospects with high-school core-course grade-point averages of 2.750 or lower. The study indicates those prospects to be the primary beneficiaries of the academic head start, regardless of their race/ethnicity or gender.

AEC Cabinet members support defining "at-risk" prospective student-athletes as those who are determined to be "at risk" by the definition applied to all students at the institution, including those who are subject to any special admission process or program. When an institution does not have an official "at-risk" designation for incoming student-athletes, the standard shall be a "core-course" grade-point average and/or standardized test score to be identified through an analysis of the summer bridge program research.

Cabinet members also were sensitive to the cost concerns expressed by many athletics administrators, recommending a delay in the effective date of Proposal No. 03-15 (as amended by Proposal No. 03-15-1) to summer 2005. The group also wants research to continue on the pilot study to determine the long-term effects of the summer-term head start on prospects' graduation rate.

The Board of Directors does not have the legislative authority to resurrect a proposal that has been defeated by the Management Council, but it can adopt the measure as emergency legislation at its April meeting if it wishes to do so. Board members were not unanimous in January whether the matter necessarily rose to the level of emergency legislation, but they did want to send a message to the Council that they were interested in expanding the summer-school pilot.

In other legislative action, the AEC Cabinet urged the Management Council to support Proposal No. 03-74, which precludes institutions from counting a travel day related to athletics participation as a day off for student-athletes. The proposal received initial approval from the Management Council in January when the measure was amended to exempt travel to and from Hawaii and Alaska from the proposed restrictions.

The AEC Cabinet's recommendation contradicts action taken by the Championships/
Competition Cabinet at its meeting in February. The Championships/Competition Cabinet, which initially supported the proposal, decided in February to recommend defeat after hearing concerns about the administrative logistics of the proposal, especially in sports such as basketball. The AEC Cabinet, though, emphasized the proposal's attention to the academic and personal welfare of student-athletes as paramount reasons for supporting the measure. Further, AEC Cabinet members noted that a waiver process exists to deal with circumstances that warrant relief of the legislation.

AEC Cabinet members also acted on another legislative proposal that has spurred debate -- No. 03-88, which would preclude institutions from printing media guides in all sports, though the information would be allowed to be displayed on institutional Web sites. The Management Council gave initial approval to the cost-containment measure in January, but many sports information directors and other athletics administrators believe the proposal has many negative unintended consequences.

The AEC Cabinet asked that the Management Council defeat Proposal No. 03-88, citing instead its support of a less-restrictive proposal (No. 03-32), which would allow the guides to be printed but not distributed to prospective student-athletes as a recruiting tool.

Noncontroversial legislation

The AEC Cabinet also asked the Management Council to sponsor three pieces of noncontroversial legislation, two regarding credit-hour requirements and another that would establish a recruiting calendar in women's lacrosse.

Proposal No. 04-4 would specify that student-athletes enrolled in an institutionally approved study-abroad or cooperative-education program shall not be required to satisfy the six-hour requirement for the term or terms of enrollment in such programs. Proposal No. 04-5 allows student-athletes in their final academic year of their degree program to use any academic credits (not just degree-applicable) to satisfy the six-hour requirement.

Cabinet members noted that over the last several months, the NCAA staff has processed progress-toward-degree waivers of the six-hour requirement in which the circumstances cited are unintended consequences of the legislation. Several students in the last year of their degree program did not satisfy the six-hour requirement with degree-applicable credits, since only a certain number of degree courses were offered for a particular term or the student-athlete had a small number of courses remaining to satisfy requirements for the degree.

Under those circumstances, the student-athletes' waivers were approved, since those students were making appropriate progress toward their degree, which is consistent with the intent of the academic-reform legislation, and students under those circumstances were not intended to be adversely impacted by the legislation.

As for legislation to establish a women's lacrosse recruiting calendar, cabinet members noted that with the growth of the sport, many new recruiting opportunities have developed that require coaches to increase the amount of time away from family and member institutions. A recruiting calendar will provide a balance between coaches' professional and personal lives and allow them more time to work with current student-athletes.

In other actions, the cabinet's continuing-eligibility subcommittee agreed to support a blanket waiver that applies to the term-by-term certification requirements that the Division I Board of Directors has encouraged. The matter has been problematic because institutions that operate on a quarter system are burdened from a timing standpoint by the term-by-term certification process.

The blanket waiver means that in the 2003-04 and 2004-05 academic years, an institution would have up to three business days from the date on which the grades are officially posted, or five business days from the date the grades are submitted (if no official posting date exists), to certify its student-athletes under the six-hour and grade-point average requirements.

However, the subcommittee wants the waiver to require institutions to report those instances in which the institution uses the blanket waiver to extend the eligibility certification period for a student-athlete who ultimately is declared ineligible for the ensuing academic term. Subcommittee members will review the long-term impact of this issue and will discuss issues related to the timing of certification during its June meeting.

Finally, the AEC Cabinet's recruiting subcommittee discussed current NCAA regulations and practices related to official visits in light of allegations of abuse and noted that an NCAA task force had been established to further address the issue (see story, page 1).

Other highlights

Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet
February 18-20/Long Beach, California

Approved a revision to the initial-eligibility waiver procedures that provides NCAA staff the authority to make waiver decisions for the majority of cases. Under the new procedure, staff will have more flexibility to make decisions on waivers that do not have on-point case precedent or present unusual circumstances. Staff may approve, partially approve or deny cases based on the staff's reasonable judgment and the particular facts of the case.

Criteria for making such decisions will include, but are not limited to the following: (1) academic readiness of a prospective student-athlete; (2) mitigating circumstances and whether the mitigating circumstances were within control of the prospective student-athlete; (3) presence of an NCAA, Clearinghouse or high-school/school district procedure preventing fulfillment of initial-eligibility requirements (for example, high-school policy does not permit a nontraditional course to be placed on the transcript); and (4) case precedent.

Received a report from the cabinet's subcommittee on financial aid regarding discussions related to the subcommittee's charge to review the current financial aid designations of women's sports. Based on its discussion to this point, the subcommittee does not recommend any changes to equivalency and head-count sport designations. However, the subcommittee is continuing to evaluate whether the maximum team limits in women's sports are appropriate, and whether increases should be considered for sports that historically have demonstrated participation growth in response to greater scholarship availability.

Heard a report from the cabinet's subcommittee on agents and amateurism regarding student-athletes being involved in promotional activities (for example, institutional, nonprofit, charitable, educational and commercial). The subcommittee discussed some specific examples and agreed that the issue is complex and necessitates a more in-depth review. The cabinet agreed with the subcommittee's decision to invite individuals with vested interest in this topic, including faculty, student-athletes, marketing agents and NCAA staff, to the June meeting to further review whether the current legislation is appropriate.