DALLAS -- If the National Association of Basketball Coaches' comprehensive package on access and recruiting was a team playing a championship game, it was behind at the half. By the time the Division I Management Council broke for lunch at its January 9 voting session, members had defeated most of the key proposals in the package.

But a move to reconsider during the second half of the meeting kept alive and sent out for comment the nucleus of a package designed to increase access for coaches to student-athletes, build mentoring opportunities, improve academic performance and reform recruiting.

The core measures from the NABC package to move into the 60-day comment period before the Council and Board of Directors give their final votes in April are:

• Proposal No. 04-110-A, which would provide greater contact the summer before the student-athlete's freshman year between a coach and a recruit who has signed a National Letter of Intent.

• Proposal Nos. 04-115-A and 04-115-B, which would permit coaches more contact with student-athletes year-round to further enhance a student-athlete's integration into the institution and allow the coach to promote academic responsibility.

• Proposal No. 04-116, which would allow coaches to observe their players in voluntary athletics activities outside the playing season, in cluding during the school year and vacation periods (including the summer).

• Proposal No. 04-119-A, which would give coaches more off-campus contact with recruits and permit schools to conduct tryouts with recruits. (Tryouts are limited to one per institution and six total for recruits. Proposal No. 04-119-B, which also was forwarded for consideration, would prohibit the tryouts.)

Early in the meeting, though, it did not appear that the athletics administrators on the Council believed that coaches are sincere in their claim that they want to use the proposals to focus more on student-athletes' academic and social acclimatization than as a way to create more practice time. Concerns centered primarily on how coaches would use the additional access, and the additional pressures such access might create for student-athletes.

Council members acknowledged, for example, that from a coach's perspective, observing players in voluntary athletics activities (as Proposal No. 04-116 would allow) may give them a better understanding of personalities and the chemistry among team members in competitive situations. But from the student-athlete's perspective, such access may unintentionally increase expectations for them to participate and thus counter the voluntary nature of the activity.

Council members also doubted whether coaches could "avoid" coaching during such observances. One member in fact compared the situation to a teacher observing a student making mistakes on an important project without offering advice or corrections.

The Council also questioned whether there is broad-based support for the package of proposals even among coaches themselves.

Thus, most of the proposals cited above initially were defeated until several Council members made an impassioned plea later in the meeting for their peers to let the proposals be vetted through the full length of the legislative cycle. What may have carried the day in the motion to reconsider was an acknowledgement that the ball in effect was now in the coaches' court, and that they would need to use the comment period strategically to convince presidents, athletics directors and faculty representatives that their intent is genuine.

One Council member who pushed for reconsideration said, "While I don't necessarily agree with the merits of these proposals at the moment, it's important for us to remain true to the process, send the proposals out and direct coaches to increase communication efforts. Let the membership be the deciding body in April, not the Council in January. Give coaches a chance to address the rationale more effectively than they've done so far."

"Coaches developed the package as kind of an olive branch," said another. "We may end up where we are today in April, but at least we'll have honored the process."

The Council emphasized that the package may be defeated again in April unless members hear compelling arguments from the grass-roots level -- from coaches on their own campuses.

"If this meeting had constituted a final vote, the men's basketball package would have failed," said Council Chair Chris Monasch, commissioner of the America East Conference. "Rather than use its authority provided by the structure to defeat proposals in January, however, the Council decided to engage in a good-faith effort to work with the NABC leadership to communicate better at the campus level -- among coaches, athletics directors and faculty.

"The next 60 days is a critical time for coaches -- not just those who are part of the NABC board of directors, but all Division I coaches who believe in the proposals. Hopefully at the end of that period there will be a meeting of the minds. We don't have that, yet."

Sent out for comment

Other proposals in the NABC package that were forwarded for membership comment were:

• Nos. 04-112-B and 04-112-D, which allow first-year players to participate in preseason exhibition contests or scrimmages without losing a season of eligibility.

• No. 04-114, which permits three certified coaching staff members to engage in off-campus recruiting at the same time.

• No. 04-118, which specifies that coaches and noncoaching staff members with basketball-specific responsibilities may be employed only at their own institution's camps or clinics.

* No. 04-120, which would prohibit institutions from sending general correspondence to prospects before June 15 at the end of the prospect's sophomore year in high school.

The parts of the package that were defeated and not reconsidered included Proposal No. 04-111, which would provide additional benefits to student-athletes, and Proposal No. 04-117, which would require four days off for student-athletes each month with flexibility in how they could be staggered. Proposal No. 04-111's defeat came as no surprise, since groups within the structure had made it clear earlier that such an effort to provide additional benefits should be in all sports, not just basketball.

Council members cited student-athlete well-being concerns with Proposal No. 04-117, noting the potential for student-athletes to have lengthy spans between off-days.

But at least the core proposals in the men's basketball package remain alive. And the Management Council has made it clear that it is up to coaches to keep it that way.

"The NABC, particularly (Executive Director) Jim Haney, has done well to promote the merits of the proposals," Monasch said. "But the trust-gap issue on the campus level is the impediment to overcome. The recruiting environment needs help, and if we don't find ways to call on coaches to help, we're not going to make progress."

WBCA proposals

While the NABC package went through its tumultuous trek, a similar set of proposals introduced by the Women's Basketball Coaches Association was forwarded for additional consideration largely intact.

Only a handful of proposals were defeated, and one of those in fact was rendered moot by a more comprehensive proposal from another sponsor.

The heart of the package -- recruiting-calendar modifications that provide institutional flexibility, the empowerment of the scholastic environment in the prospect's academic lives and their athletics pursuits, and the reduction of outside influences -- remain in place for the membership to review further.

"The Council's comfort level with the WBCA proposals likely reflects members' greater comfort level with the state of the women's game overall," Monasch said. "But we can expect another thorough review of both the men's and women's packages in April."

Other highlights

Division I Management Council
January 7/Dallas

• Sponsored noncontroversial legislation to eliminate the summer baseball certification program in NCAA Bylaw 30.15.

• Heard a report from NCAA President Myles Brand, who explained the formulation of the College Basketball Partnership, a group announced in December and charged with focusing on how to best position the college game. Though some Council members noted the lack of representation among various constituencies, including presidents, faculty, and Divisions I-AA and I-AAA members, Brand emphasized that while additional members will be added, the group is not of the same mold as task forces or committees appointed by the NCAA governance structure and thus may not be as representative as those groups. Brand told Council members, though, that if this group is successful, all constituents stand to gain. One Council member also asked that the name of the partnership be changed to reflect its sole emphasis on men's basketball.