BALTIMORE -- While the Division II Legislation Committee was saying goodbye to its multiyear legislative deregulation effort, it took time to renew an acquaintance with a large issue from the past.

The committee conducted its final deregulation summit July 15, concluding the information-gathering component of a process that has spanned seven years. Committee Chair Paul Engelmann, faculty athletics representative at Central Missouri State University, said the principal purpose of the most recent meeting was to determine if the Legislation Committee had committed any serious oversights or gone too far in its efforts to reduce the size of the Division II Manual and to make it more usable.

In that regard, Engelmann and the committee heard only one broad theme: concerns with the amateurism deregulation package that was adopted in 2001. On that topic, several individuals who presented to the committee expressed concern with how the rule is being applied.

"We heard a lot about amateurism today," Engelmann said, "but very few of the concerns had anything to do with the concept of the legislation that was approved. It mostly pertained to the mechanics of the rule. A lot of what I heard was frustration from schools that are trying to do it right."

Division II's amateurism policy, which is distinct from that of the other divisions, focuses on whether prospective student-athletes have delayed enrollment and participated in organized competition after graduating from high school. If so, they most likely are required to establish a year of residence before competing at a Division II institution and are required to sit out one season of competition for each year of professional-level experience. While the package was characterized as "amateurism deregulation" at the time it was considered, it was developed by a Division II project team and not as part of the Legislation Committee's deregulation initiative.

During the course of the July 15 summit, the committee heard repeated reports about how over-aged student-athletes, most often from foreign countries, were continuing to compete against traditional 18- to 21-year-old Division II student-athletes. The 2001 legislation was designed precisely to stop the age-inequity issue without unfairly penalizing international student-athletes.

Several summit participants noted that prospects have become more "educated" in responding to questions about their competitive experiences in ways that will not adversely affect their eligibility. Further, while Internet tools such as Google yield a wealth of information about international student-athletes, the information frequently is in a foreign, often uncommon, language. Thus, compliance officers who take the trouble to translate the record, investigate claims or use services provided by the NCAA foreign student records consultants are frustrated that they frequently find factors that affect eligibility while those who don't dig deeply don't find anything. The problem, of course, is that those who do not investigate end up with the services of talented athletes who are used against the institutions that may have exercised due diligence.

During the summit, such discussions almost invariably led to whether the solution rests with a clearinghouse similar to the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse. Unless Division I chooses to take such a step, however, Engelmann said he doesn't believe such a solution is likely to happen.

"To begin with, the function would be very different from that of the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse, so I don't know that you could gain many efficiencies from linking the functions together," he said. "But the most obvious problem is that Division II simply could not afford something like this on its own. I heard some sentiment to pass the cost along to prospects who have delayed enrollment, but I have to believe that would be cost-prohibitive for the individual, given what we know about the expense of administering the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse."

Management Council Chair Sue Willey wasn't so sure on the last point. While noting that such concepts are extremely preliminary, she said that Division II should not necessarily discard the idea of requiring student-athletes with delayed enrollment to bear all or most of the financial burden of certification.

"My sense is that we need to take another step," said Willey, athletics director at the University of Indianapolis. "Part of responsibility may rest with asking the Legislation Committee to better educate the membership on how to apply the rules. But this is a serious problem. Kids are being told to lie. Schools don't always have the resources to do the necessary background checks, and if those checks aren't being done consistently, then it's not fair to the schools that are complying."

Other issues

Throughout the day, the committee heard about other large issues. While Engelmann did not dismiss any concerns, he noted that the issues expressed tended to be sport-specific or directed at factors that the committee considered at the time it recommended the legislation. Such issues included progress-toward-degree requirements (2003 Convention), legislation modifying competition in the nontraditional segment (2002 and 2003 Conventions) and changes to countable financial aid (2001 Convention).

"I understand that we will encounter differences of opinion about what the rules are to be," Engelmann said, "and everybody should understand that the membership is free to propose legislation at any time to change the Manual, including what was done as part of the deregulation process. That, however, is different from what we were seeking to accomplish at today's meeting, which was to learn if there were factors we didn't consider when the legislation was proposed. Most of the concerns I heard today previously had been considered."

One presentation at the final deregulation summit had nothing to do with the substance of the rules. Instead, North Central Conference Commissioner Mike Marcil focused on what can be done to make the Manual itself more user-friendly.

While Marcil stressed the importance of eliminating repetition, simplifying language and graphically isolating individual elements of legislation, talk quickly shifted to what can be done to improve the Manual's index. One commissioner went so far as to call the current index "useless." The membership services staff and the staff publishing wing will determine what can be done to improve the utility of the index.

Marcil stressed that while the presentation of the Manual may seem to be a low priority, the matter is more important than it appears.

"I believe the substance of the Manual is obscured by the style," he said. "This is one of the least user-friendly pieces that the NCAA puts out. Right now, I know there are coaches who are picking up the Manual only when they have to.

"Division II should be a leader on this. People should be comfortable enough with the Manual that it is the first book they turn to."

Division II Legislative Deregulation Process