BALTIMORE -- Legislative proposals regarding transfers dominated discussion at the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet's September 7-9 meeting.

The cabinet's continuing-eligibility subcommittee initially reviewed transfer proposals and developed an academically based framework to evaluate specific pieces. That philosophy included the impact on student-athlete well-being and the academic impact of a transfer situation on a student-athlete, regardless of the reason for the transfer.

Subcommittee members also considered a student-athlete's recruited or nonrecruited status and whether he or she had received athletically related financial aid. Some subcommittee members believe student-athletes who are not recruited and not receiving aid should be free to transfer without significant penalty. Others, though, feel that a student-athlete owes a commitment to the institution that devoted time and/or resources in either recruitment or financial aid contingent upon that student-athlete's participation in athletics. All members, however, agreed that transfer students should leave their original institution only after meeting academic eligibility requirements, no matter the reason for the transfer.

With that philosophy in mind, the subcommittee, and later the full cabinet, voted to oppose permitting student-athletes in Division I-A football, basketball and men's ice hockey to use the one-time transfer exception currently available in all other sports. In making that decision, members also considered comments forwarded by a number of constituents studying the one-time transfer exception, including the Division I Football Issues Committee, the Division I Men's and Women's Basketball Issues Committees, and a Division I Management Council ad hoc group. Those bodies also opposed allowing the three sports in question to use the one-time transfer exception.

The Council ad hoc group was formed in response to a July 2003 request from the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, which wanted the exception to be extended to student-athletes in all sports. The ad hoc group sent recommendations to the Council in October 2004, some of which became proposals in the 2005-06 legislative cycle.

At its meeting, though, cabinet members based their opposition to extending the one-time transfer exception on the premise that doing so would be detrimental to the academic progress of those student-athletes. Traditionally, they said, student-athletes in men's basketball and Division I-A football do not perform as well academically as other student-athletes, as measured by graduation rates. Keeping the one-time transfer exception out of Division I-A football and basketball would continue to require student-athletes in those sports a year in residence to concentrate on academics.

The cabinet also opposed legislation that would eliminate the one-time transfer exception for baseball student-athletes. However, members noted they would like to hear more from the American Baseball Coaches Association and the Division I Baseball Issues Committee about general transfer issues in baseball. Data show a higher transfer rate in baseball than in other sports, and some in the baseball community believe the ease of movement in the sport contributes to a lack of academic success. Cabinet members indicated they would be willing to reconsider the issue if there was compelling evidence indicating that eliminating the transfer exception would boost academic performance in the sport.

The cabinet also opposed legislation that would restrict a one-time transfer exception for student-athletes in football who transfer from Division I-A schools to Division I-AA institutions, provided that the student-athlete had two or more seasons of eligibility remaining. In the subcommittee discussion of the issue, members discussed the culture of I-AA football and the occasional practice of recruiting "hired guns" that have no intention of fulfilling academic requirements. However, members could not find a compelling academic reason to restrict the transfers.

Recruiting proposals

In addition to transfer issues, the cabinet tackled a variety of proposals dealing with recruiting. Members reviewed proposals involving the junior year telephone contact in several sports, including gymnastics and women's ice hockey. The cabinet modified its own proposal on the issue, which eliminates the junior year telephone contact in sports other than football and basketball, to make the effective date immediate. Cabinet members believe that delaying the effective date until August 1, 2006, would not affect the spring 2006 recruiting season. The cabinet proposed the legislation at its June 2005 meeting, and members believe that eliminating the junior year contact will relieve pressure on both student-athletes and coaches to make and secure early commitments and will be less intrusive for student-athletes.

The cabinet also consistently made an effort to reduce unnecessary contacts with student-athletes by supporting legislation that would institute quiet periods in some sports (women's ice hockey) and opposing legislation that would make more contact permissible in other sports (field hockey).

In addition, cabinet members recommended modifications to a proposal that would limit football evaluations to specific events during the spring evaluation period. The cabinet agreed with its recruiting subcommittee's recommendation that the scope of the legislation be expanded to include two-year college prospects and any events that occur during any contact or evaluation period.

The cabinet also suggested modifications to a related proposal that would prevent an institution from hosting a tryout camp, clinic, group workout or combine at any location, recommending that coaches be permitted to attend such events only if it is open for all coaches.

Members also opposed legislation that would allow schools to employ a prospect in a summer camp or clinic under certain conditions, including when the prospect is enrolled in the institution's summer term before initial full-term enrollment. While such employment opportunities could streamline the monitoring process for an institution's compliance department and also could provide a sense of community with the prospect's new institution, the cabinet felt that such a practice is contrary to the pursuit of academic goals.

After reviewing legislation, the cabinet also heard from an ad hoc group the cabinet charged with discussing proposals developed by the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics and Division I faculty athletics representatives. Thurston Banks, faculty athletics representative at Tennessee Technological University, said recommendations for legislative proposals likely are to be produced when the group meets in conjunction with cabinet in February.

Kevin Lennon, NCAA vice-president for membership services, indicated that the Association will continue to collaborate with other groups for ideas that could eventually end up in the governance process.

Cabinet members also heard an update on the progress of the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics, which held its first meeting in June. Cabinet members also discussed the impact that Hurricane Katrina could have on its work, noting that widespread destruction of or damage to many educational records could make completing the initial-eligibility process challenging for some prospects in the affected areas.

Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet
September 7-9/Baltimore

• Opposed legislation that would permit a fifth season of eligibility for football-student-athletes within five years of initial enrollment. The decision to oppose the legislation is consistent with the position cabinet members took in 2004 against similar legislation.

• Modified several proposals the cabinet first submitted in June, including:

Proposal No. 05-75, modified to specify an immediate effective date. The legislation states that in sports other than basketball and football, in-person, off-campus recruiting contacts with a recruit or his/her legal guardians or relatives must not take place until after July 1. It also eliminates the junior year telephone call to prospects.

Proposal No. 05-46, modified to specify that a student-athlete shall not receive athletically related financial aid to attend the certifying institution's summer term or summer school unless the student-athlete received athletically related aid from the certifying institution during the student-athlete's previous academic year at that institution.

Proposal No. 05-41, which frees athletics directors and head coaches from signing student-athlete statements for each individual student-athlete. The cabinet modified the proposal to require the athletics director and head coach in the sport to sign the squad list form.

Proposal No. 05-31, which requires institutions to provide initial eligibility standards to prospects in a timely fashion. The cabinet modified the proposal to specify that a violation of the bylaw is an institutional violation but it will not affect the eligibility of prospective student-athletes.

Proposal No. 05-30, modified to allow state-administered ACT exams to also be used to satisfy official-visit academic requirements, in addition to initial-eligibility requirements.

Proposal No. 05-29, modified to delete the section requiring nonvoting student-athletes to attend all in-person meetings and be part of conference calls not associated with an appeal of a reinstatement case because it was considered unnecessary. The cabinet also changed the effective date to immediately.

Proposal No. 05-25, which concerns the use of a student-athlete's name, picture or likeness on items for retail sale. The cabinet specified that no one may sell such items unless they are purely informational -- media guides, schedule cards, etc. However, only member institutions at which the student-athlete is enrolled, institutionally controlled outlets or outlets controlled by a charitable or educational organization may sell such informational items.