The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee reviewed proposals in the 2005-06 legislative cycle at its November 18-20 meeting in San Antonio.

Committee Chair Ian Gray said SAAC members took exception to one proposal in particular, No. 05-101, which would affect student-athlete benefits regarding medical expenses.

Under the proposal, institutions would pay only for medical expenses incurred from athletically related injuries or illnesses during the academic year or in the summer. A student-athlete's non-athletics medical expenses would not fall under the institution's responsibility.

"In the last four or five years, we've pushed for allowing institutions to pay for injuries and medical treatments for any injury during our career," Gray said. "Proposal No. 05-101 is a step back. We are opposed to that."

The proposal runs counter to legislation adopted in 2004 that allows institutions to pay for a student-athlete's medical expenses regardless of whether the injury or illness was athletically related.

The committee would prefer other alternatives, such as Proposal No. 05-102, which allows institutions to purchase an insurance policy to cover a student-athlete's medical expenses for any injury or illness.

"If this is the way institutions want to address the cost issue associated with paying for medical needs, then Proposal No. 05-102 is a great way to address that," Gray said. "We are opposed to taking a giant step back in medically related aid, which is a huge student-athlete well-being issue."

Interestingly, the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet prefers Proposal No. 05-101. The cabinet, in fact, recommends that Proposal No. 05-102 be defeated. The NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports recommends that both proposals be adopted. That group believes Proposal No. 05-101 addresses an equity issue institutions face in providing medical benefits with limited resources, and that Proposal No. 05-102 could result in the cost savings necessary to provide for broad-based coverage.

Skill instruction

Another proposal that caught the SAAC's attention was No. 05-136, which would permit skill instruction up to four hours per week outside the playing season during the academic year for sports other than football.

The proposal would allow more than four student-athletes to receive such instruction from their coaches, and it specifies that no such activities may occur in the week preceding exam periods.

Gray said SAAC members expressed mixed feelings about the measure. He said the "dead week" concept before the start of finals drew the strongest support from SAAC because it allows student-athletes more time to study.

"We were divided on the other two issues," said Gray, a former cross country and track student-athlete at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. "The division wasn't by conference size, either, but by sport."

He said SAAC is leaning toward supporting the portion of the proposal that allows more than four student-athletes participating in skill-related instruction.

For example, he said, baseball student-athletes believe having more than four players practicing together would allow them to conduct a more meaningful workout. Because there are nine positions in baseball, it is difficult for a coach to instruct only four players at a time, especially on defensive aspects of the game. Allowing more players to receive skill instruction also would eliminate time constraints on student-athletes and coaches, who could all meet at one time instead of having to report to a practice at staggered times throughout the day.

SAAC members were not as supportive, though, of increasing skill-related instruction from two hours per week to four. Gray said the issue there was time constraints.

"We felt that more emphasis would be placed on volunteer times for lifting weights and film hours," Gray said.

SAAC members also oppose Proposal No. 05-108, which calls for five seasons of competition for football student-athletes only.

Gray, who has been a member of the committee since July 2003, said the five-year concept has been raised a number of times during his term.

"While the SAAC has turned over members and changed its outlook on various proposals, we have always stood firmly against this concept," Gray said. "Football student-athletes have consistently come out and said they do not want five seasons of eligibility.

"Football student-athletes still have five years to complete four seasons of eligibility. The core purpose of five seasons of eligibility is not driven by student-athlete well-being, even though it's being billed as that. We feel it's a proposal to just put players on the field."

Gray said SAAC members were concerned that football student-athletes who complete their degrees in four years still would be expected to play a fifth season even if they wanted to pursue other academic opportunities in graduate school.

Override vote

The SAAC also reviewed the first proposal to earn an override vote since Division I went to representative governance structure in 1997. The proposal, No. 04-21, would increase scholarships limits in women's gymnastics (12 to 14), women's volleyball (12 to 13), women's soccer (12 to 14) and women's track and field and cross country (18 to 20).

SAAC members endorsed the proposal previously, but they tempered their support after hearing concerns from Division I-AA and I-AAA conferences.

Initially, SAAC members thought that increasing scholarships in those sports seemed like a great idea because it created more opportunities for female athletes to compete. However, the SAAC paused after considering the proposal's effect on competitive equity.

"In volleyball, for example, the larger institutions would be getting the kind of player who could be a star at a I-AA or I-AAA institution, but be riding the bench at the larger school," Gray said. "The proposal would provide for more scholarship opportunities, but it might create more transfer issues. You may have that player at the Division I-A school looking to transfer. What kind of disruptive characteristics does that bring to the educational process?"

Gray said the SAAC isn't done thinking about Proposal No. 04-21. He said the group will develop an official position on the proposal before the Convention, including a look at what sports in the proposal might be best positioned for an increase in scholarships.