In an era of cost-cutting and belt-tightening, something must have been pretty pressing for the NCAA to actually add a committee ... especially for a cause supposedly so benign as playing rules.

But sure enough, a subject that largely had been downplayed by the governance structure for many years earned its day in the legislative sun in 2004 when the Association OK'd a 12-member panel to give playing rules and the committees that make them the oversight and attention they deserve.

Now that the Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP) has been in business for two years, rules committee members and others in the governance structure are judging their comfort level with the new process. While feedback is favorable so far, there remains a question of whether a group composed of division representatives can act in the best interests of an Association-wide game, especially when sometimes complicated and controversial measures affect divisions differently.

PROP includes six members from Division I and three each from Divisions II and III. Three of the six Division I members come from the Championships/Competition Cabinet and the other three are appointed by the Collegiate Commissioners Association. At least one of the Divisions II and III representatives also must come from those divisions' championships committees.

Their charge? Essentially, the panel is the checkpoint for all playing rules committees. PROP ratifies simple changes and vets the more controversial ones through its Association-wide composition. The group also serves as a liaison for research and communication pertaining to the administration of playing rules, including experimentation and budget requests.

Why is PROP necessary? Because when the NCAA federated its governance structure in 1997 to allow each division more autonomy in decision-making, playing rules were in some ways treated like the forgotten stepchild in a family breakup.

Playing rules -- which encompass anything from court and field markings and equipment specifications to conduct fouls and substitution procedures -- were one of the few entities left in the Association that required the attention of all three "parents." At the time, though, there wasn't an effective mechanism in place to ensure proper oversight of the playing rules committees and the recommendations they make.

The issue is complicated by the fact that playing rules must be common among divisions -- not just because the NCAA said so, but because it is logical to do so. Having common playing rules facilitates inter-divisional play and is more practical for officials who work games in two or more divisions. It also makes sense from a spectator point of view to have playing rules be consistent in all of college football, for example -- or lacrosse, soccer or baseball -- rather than the confusion of varying from one game to the next. Rules also must be consistent from the regular season to postseason play, adding more complexity to the equation.

Second, even before restructuring, the playing rules approval process lacked effective reporting lines. Before 1997, playing rules committees were left to their own devices for the most part, except when a proposed change affected player safety, caused significant financial ramifications to institutions or threatened what was called "the image of the game."

Those parameters weren't bylaw-driven; rather, they appeared in a handbook of policies pertaining to the NCAA Executive Committee, which at the time had the final say in playing rules matters that fell into those three categories.

That was fine for a while, though it was apparent that the college and university presidents who composed the Executive Committee did not have the expertise or in some cases the patience to adjudicate heated debates about playing rules.

The need for an alternative, objective oversight panel came to a head in 2003 when proposed rules changes in two major sports became tangled in what appeared to be a web of special interests. Without PROP in place, rules changes that fell into the safety, financial or image barrel were fair game for the division championships groups to debate. Three such cases that year were proposed changes to the three-point line and free-throw lane in basketball, and a "no-tolerance" rule in soccer that tightened existing penalties for foul or abusive language.

While the lane markings, which had the approval of the Men's Basketball Rules Committee, clearly carried financial ramifications, those apparently were allayed by the committee's issuance of a one-year implementation delay to allow schools to prepare. Meanwhile, the Men's and Women's Soccer Committee didn't even forward its new language policy to the championships groups since members assumed the proposal enhanced rather than detracted from the image of the game.

But image of the game was the very logic the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet used to derail all three measures from their approval track. While that was the official rationale, some people speculated that coaches had lobbied cabinet members to defeat the measures on their merit, not because of their effect on the image of the game.

There also were problems when divisions disagreed on a proposal, as was the case with the soccer language rule. Divisions II and III actually liked that one, but Division I thought such policies shouldn't be sport-specific. But the structure was ill-equipped to handle such disagreements, which only caused unnecessary delays.

With challenges becoming more numerous and higher in profile, the governance structure was forced to look at an alternative approval process for playing rules. PROP seemed to be the answer.

PROP's first chair, Bernard Muir, who at the time was an administrator at the University of Notre Dame and now is the athletics director at Georgetown University, said the panel was a structural solution since it streamlined oversight groups from three (the championships bodies) to one. What PROP didn't solve, at least immediately, were jurisdiction issues.

Rules committees in fact regarded PROP as perhaps usurping their authority at first. Marcy Weston, longtime secretary-rules editor for the Women's Basketball Rules Committee, compared the new group to Congress -- would PROP members represent their constituents or vote their own minds?

"You always hope that any committee with oversight responsibilities votes in the best interests of the student-athlete and the game," she said. "I'm not saying PROP doesn't or didn't have that in mind, but ... a person could bring a personal agenda with them, which is a factor for any committee, not just PROP."

Muir said as PROP has progressed, that hasn't been an issue. While there may have been some growing pains early on about what PROP was charged to do, Muir said it didn't take long for members to stop kidding themselves about who were the experts.

"There's a reason why those people are appointed to serve on the rules committees -- they are the experts in their particular sport and stewards of the game. PROP, though, can only enhance that," he said.

In many ways, PROP has served as an enhancement simply by providing increased communication. The group meets three times annually, once after each season, and members conduct conference calls as needed to iron out issues. There's also ongoing, free-flowing dialogue between PROP and the 16 rules committees regarding proposals that currently are being discussed, as well as others that may be only in the concept stage.

The purpose, according to current PROP Chair Jill Willson, is to make sure no one on either side is caught off guard.

"PROP is a diverse group -- and intentionally so -- that can look objectively at proposals," said Willson, the director of athletics at Texas A&M University-Kingsville. "It's our job to be responsible to the sports and their needs for rules changes -- it's not a group that is trying to be politically correct or to advocate for one constituency over another."

Another recent enhancement is that PROP, not the Executive Committee, has become the final arbiter in rules matters, which streamlines the process even further. That efficiency provides more immediate feedback to rules committees and facilitates quicker production of the rules books for the upcoming season.

PROP member John Cochrane, commissioner of the Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, said that has helped the group become more comfortable with the jurisdiction issue that had previously been problematic.

"For the first couple of years, it was an effort to further define those boundaries," he said. "What was our role in the structure? Who, if anyone, did we report to or send recommendations to? We're comfortable now with our role and our jurisdiction -- dealing with those rules that affect finances, safety and the still-gray area of image of the game. I think under Jill we're doing a nice job of staying within those guidelines and not arbitrarily expanding image of the game to every possible rules change."

That's comforting to rules committee members, though PROP at its latest meeting denied a Softball Rules Committee request on the image principle. The softball group wanted to notify presidents after cases of coach misconduct, but as was the case with the soccer language policy, PROP thought it best to review such action in the scope of all sports, not just one. Plus, members suggested that having the rule apply only to softball could actually have a negative impact on the sport's image, since presidents would hear only about coach behavior in that sport, leaving them to suppose that coaches in other sports were better behaved.

As of now, there is no solid definition of "image of the sport," which means it is left open to interpretation. Some people think that lets PROP use the qualifier to its advantage. PROP, though, is working to better define that particular parameter.

"In some ways it's good to have 'image of the game' not be so tightly defined," Willson said, "because people have different opinions about what the terminology encompasses, and that diversity of perspective might catch some things that people close to the rules-making process may otherwise miss. But I agree that we need to define it in a way in which both PROP and the playing rules committees have a common understanding of how it can be applied."

The next task for the image-of-the-game challenge may emerge next spring when the basketball rules committees could once again propose changes to the three-point line and free-throw lane. PROP's involvement in those decisions may provide a telling barometer on the group's evolution.

Acceptance of PROP

Despite the ruling in softball, Dee Abrahamson, that sport's secretary-rules editor, said having PROP in place is a good idea. Even though PROP members may not be rules experts, it forces rules committees that now report to them to consider their point of view.

"Having PROP in place prompts rules-makers to defend their decisions and think about them from a layperson's perspective, which provides another important check and balance," said Abrahamson, an associate athletics director at Northern Illinois University.

"Committees are accepting PROP as part
of the process," echoed Lynn Hickey, athletics director at the University of Texas at San Antonio and former chair of the Women's Basketball Rules Committee. "If the rules committees have done a good job of gathering information and making decisions based on that information, then very rarely will there be a conflict in the decision-making authority between rules committees and PROP.

"In fact, I think PROP is being regarded more as a protection layer for the membership as a whole and not as an obstacle."

Cliff McCrath, the secretary-rules editor for soccer, sees it that way, too.

"Inasmuch as we're all under authority, whether it's the Executive Committee or PROP, it makes you do your homework," said the men's soccer coach at Seattle Pacific University. "PROP could have the same impurities as any other administrative body, but it's healthy because it's someone to whom we have to not bow but report, and our proposals have to be verified by some group that has greater accountability."

Hickey said most rules committee members and others in the governance structure regard PROP as just part of the family now. "The initial shock or indignation (about usurping power) has worn off," she said. "Plus, there are pretty good people on PROP, and they're not just going to throw things out on a whim."

Muir agreed. He said as the communication strengthens between PROP and the rules committees, and as both sides become more comfortable with the approval process, the bonds will tighten.

"It's all about change and trust," he said. "As the process moves forward, people will react more positively to change and develop a little more trust in the system."

While that trust may not have been apparent two years ago, indications are that PROP has proven to be a good committee investment for the Association, one that will benefit not only the people who make the rules, but also the student-athletes who play by them.