Though the Convention doesn't bring the same kind of voting finality to Division I that it does for Divisions II and III, the agendas for the Division I governance groups meeting January 7-10 in Dallas nonetheless include some significant issues for which the dividing line is a yea or a nay.

The Division I Board of Directors in particular will discuss two controversial items at its January 10 meeting that base acceptance on just such a bright line. One is where to set the "cut points" in the newly adopted academic-reform structure under which athletics teams will be subject to contemporaneous penalties. The other is membership criteria for Division I-A, including a determination of how much public support -- gauged by football attendance -- is necessary for an athletics program to earn the I-A classification.

Presidents have been deliberating the latter for several years -- the Board in fact approved a membership-criteria package in 2002 that included an average attendance requirement of 15,000 -- but the presidents agreed this summer to make sure the attendance criterion aligns with the recently adopted NCAA strategic plan. Since then, Division I-A institutions on the attendance cusp have pushed for alternatives, and the Board agreed to a presentation in January of Division I-A membership standards, including the historic data and principles used to the develop the 15,000 average home game attendance requirement (see story, page 1).

The other primary item for review at the Board's January 10 meeting is where to draw the line at which athletics teams should be subject to the "contemporaneous" penalties outlined in the academic-reform structure the presidents adopted in April. Those penalties, which restrict an institution's ability to replace scholarships of student-athletes who leave their institutions and wouldn't have been academically eligible had they returned, are the most immediate in the reform package that relies on the Academic Progress Rate to determine a real-time snapshot of every team's academic success. Historically based penalties, which start with a warning year followed by scholarship and recruiting restrictions, postseason bans and even restricted membership status if academic under-performance continues, will take effect after four years of APR data are collected. But presidents approved the contemporaneous penalties as a way to keep institutions from lapsing into the kind of behavior for which those harsher penalties would be necessary.

What the Board must decide in January are the cut-off points in the APR that would identify teams that are subject to those contemporaneous measures, since they begin being applied next fall based on the combination of 2003-04 and 2004-05 APR data. The presidents also must determine how heavy a hammer they want the contemporaneous penalties to wield.

"The goal of the contemporaneous penalties is to say clearly to institutions, 'You're on the wrong path, you're getting a penalty now, and you need to change your ways or more serious penalties will follow," said University of Hartford President Walter Harrison, a Board member who also chairs the Division I Committee on Academic Performance.

Preliminary APR data from 2003-04 indicate that had contemporaneous penalties been in place already, several football and men's basketball teams would have lost multiple scholarships. That caused CAP members to take into account how much of an effect they wanted the contemporaneous penalties to have, and whether that effect was fair when applied to teams of different sizes. Harrison's committee already has considered recommending to the Board the idea of "capping" or limiting the amount of scholarship restrictions a team could receive in a given year.

The CAP and the Board also will have to consider how institutional mission factors into the contemporaneous-penalty equation. For example, if a team's APR falls below the cut point but is at or above the institution's graduation rate, then perhaps that team should not be subject to the penalty.

Harrison said factors such as those may be more challenging for the CAP and the Board to determine than where to set the cut point in the first place. "The real issue," he said, "is making sure that wherever we set it that we're setting a fair, accurate and understandable measure of satisfactory academic performance."

After the Board meets in January, the APR data collected from 2003-04 will be distributed to the Division I membership so institutions can compare their teams in the aggregate. Though no contemporaneous penalties will be applied based on those data, institutions will be able to see how their teams would have been affected had the system been in place. Harrison said that will serve as the first official warning to under-performing teams.

Work on defining the details for the historically based penalties will begin later in 2005. Harrison also said the CAP will work on the idea of rewarding teams that exceed academic standards. While much of the academic-reform focus so far has been on disincentives, Harrison said incentives -- such as public acknowledgement of academic success -- also would be an effective tool in changing behavior.

Legislative review

The Division I Management Council also will hear a presentation about academic reform, including the deliberations about the contemporaneous-penalty cut points, at its January 7 meeting. The Council's Friday evening session also will include a presentation from the new joint NCAA/USOC Task Force and an update from the first Division I regional leadership conference held this fall in Atlanta.

The Council arranged to hear presentations on Friday to clear the way for an all-day legislative session January 9 to initially consider the more than 150 proposals contained in the Division I Official Notice. The hefty total is the most the Council will have considered at one meeting since Division I went to a representative form of governance in 1997. This is the second year of Division I's single annual legislative cycle, which in part has caused the higher number of proposals. Also driving the total are almost 40 proposals from the National Association of Basketball Coaches and the Women's Basketball Coaches Association. Those groups were invited to submit comprehensive packages this summer that addressed the concepts of increased access for coaches to student-athletes, as well as several recruiting reforms.

Navigating through the legislative load may be easier, though, because of preliminary work done by the Council's legislative review subcommittee, which during its December in-person meeting divided the body of proposals into more manageable groupings. The subcommittee, chaired by Kate Hickey, senior associate athletics director at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, identified several proposals it recommends the Council consider as noncontroversial legislation, and several others that it recommends the Council initially approve and send out for membership comment. The subcommittee also identified a number of proposals it advises the Council to defeat in January.

Hickey's subcommittee also selected several proposals to be vetted more thoroughly at the Legislative Review Forum on Saturday, January 8. At that session, sponsors are invited to speak to their proposals and participants are encouraged to debate the merits. The intent is to better educate Division I members -- both through information delivery and discussion -- before conference representatives cast votes on the proposals at the Council meeting. The forum provides an opportunity for viewpoints to be aired that may not previously have been considered and thus help participants understand the practicalities involved in their application. The two basketball packages will be among proposals discussed at the forum, as will proposals regarding playing and practice seasons, and the proposal for the permanent 12th regular-season football game in Division I-A.

Other sessions

Other Division I governance sessions of note also will take place at the Convention. The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, which meets January 7-10, also will have a Sunday luncheon with the Management Council and a Monday breakfast with the Board of Directors. Topics for discussion during both sessions include conference appointments to SAAC and the issue of committee continuity; transfer issues, including the concept of "self-release" that Division III currently employs; and financial aid deregulation.

Division I also will once again conduct its annual issues forum on Monday, January 10. Topics this year include an update on a recommendation from the Division I Baseball Issues Committee to extend the playing season, an idea that could develop into a legislative proposal for the 2005-06 cycle.

The Baseball Issues Committee recommended that beginning with the 2006-07 season, February 1 be established as the first permissible practice date and March 1 (or a date near March 1) be established as the first permissible date of competition. The start date for Division I Baseball Championship also would be moved one week later.

Advocates say the changes preserve the length of the schedule and the maximum number of contests, though the season would extend further outside of the academic year. The baseball season currently has no consistent start date for either practice or games.

Also to be discussed at the issues forum are the modifications to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that became effective August 23 and are affecting overtime compensation for various athletics administrators and coaches at NCAA member institutions. Concerns include whether employees holding the title of assistant coach would be considered "exempt" from overtime compensation.

Issues forum attendees also will hear a report from the Management Council meeting, including an update on the legislative votes taken during that session.