The Division I Board of Directors at its January 9 meeting in Indianapolis approved a program that honors the top 10 percent of teams in each sport based on Academic Progress Rates (including ties). The initiative from the Division I Committee on Academic Performance (CAP) is part of a broader incentives and rewards program still being developed.

Preliminary two-year APR data indicate that a 10-percent-per-sport recognition format would result in 1,049 (about 17 percent) of all 6,071 Division I squads being honored this year. That total is expected to decrease slightly as more years of APR data are collected and fewer teams maintain a perfect APR score. About 30 percent of teams posted 1.000 APRs in the first year, and it appears that about half of those teams will maintain perfect APR scores once two-year APR data are finalized.

The proposal results in about 80 percent of Division I institutions having at least one team receiving recognition, if the preliminary two-year APR data hold true. Sixty-five institutions would have five or more teams that meet the criteria.

The public-recognition program is part of a broad-based preliminary package the CAP sent to the Board of Directors in October that features three components: rewards for absolute academic performance, recognition and rewards for academic improvement, and incentives programs that include need-based institutional grants and funding for academic-support partnerships. The public-recognition initiative is the only one CAP members have fully developed so far. The remaining components, which may include direct grants to institutions, will become clearer once the two-year APR data set is complete.

Though there is no immediate funding requirement for the public-recognition initiative the Board approved, the NCAA staff is pursuing interest from corporate champions and partners that could expand publicity in future years (for example, plaques, banners or media advertisements).

Legislative proposals

The Board also received a hefty legislative package from the Management Council, which forwarded 68 measures from its January 8 meeting that had been approved by at least a two-thirds majority. That was a result of new procedures adopted earlier by the governance structure that streamline the legislative process by moving proposals with consensus immediately to the Board for adoption rather than have them be acted on a second time in April.

While the presidents initially were surprised at the number of measures they were being asked to approve, they delayed taking action on only a handful, including one that affects the number of regular-season games in baseball.

Board members adopted the uniform start date and the season parameters provided in Proposal 05-91-B, but they continue to be bothered by the maximum number of contests it allows. The Board was among the first to suggest last year that baseball consider a reduction in games as a way to address the sport’s overall academic performance. In part because of the Board’s influence, the Championships/Competition Cabinet amended base legislation to cut the number of games from 56 to 52.

The Management Council, though, separated that part of the proposal and defeated it during the group’s January 8 meeting. The Board, though, resurrected the maximum-contest legislation and sent it back into the comment period as a message that presidents still have concerns with the playing season’s effect on baseball student-athletes’ academic performance.

Board members also deferred action until April on two other proposals that the Management Council approved by wide margins the day before. One, Proposal No. 05-144, would allow Division I-A teams to be bowl-eligible with 6-6 records in 12-game seasons. The other, Proposal No. 05-97, excludes from the APR cohort those student-athletes who have graduated but have remaining eligibility. Board members felt neither had been vetted enough for immediate adoption. They also noted CAP’s strong opposition to Proposal No. 05-97.

Other proposals the Board deferred until April were:

* No. 05-25, which specifies parameters regarding the sale of items bearing the names, likeness or pictures of student-athletes

* No. 05-31, which specifies procedures for notifying prospects about Division I initial-eligibility standards.

* No. 05-54 regarding the eligibility of student-athletes in graduate programs at schools other than their undergraduate institutions.

* No. 05-65, which allows a student-athlete who is professional in one sport to receive institutional financial aid for participation in a second sport.

* No. 05-71, which allows schools to provide local transportation for prospects to attend a home game during an unofficial visit.

* No. 05-86 regarding recruiting-contact parameters concerning student-athletes from team restricted from postseason play because of Academic performance Program penalties.

* No. 05-104, which establishes a 14-day grace period for a student-athlete who is trying out for a team to complete the drug-testing consent form.

Amateurism issues

In addition to legislative actions, the presidents also wrestled with an issue that gave the Management Council trouble a day earlier. The matter involves Proposal No. 05-26, which revises the restrictions related to the use of a student-athlete’s name, picture or appearance in certain institutional, charitable, educational or nonprofit promotions. In essence, the revisions would allow companies to sponsor promotional activities using student-athletes’ images as long as the promotional focus is on the institution and its educational mission, not on the commercial entity.

The proposal actually emanated from the Board in August when presidents wanted to explore more flexibility for institutions to promote their programs in a way that accommodates advances in technology. But the idea of relaxing current legislation proved more controversial than some people thought. Debate on the issue this fall did not produce a consensus, and indeed, at the Management Council’s January 8 meeting, the issue almost didn’t even make it to the comment phase of the legislative cycle, going out only when members called for its reconsideration after the proposal had been defeated.

The sticking point, both for administrators and presidents alike, appears to be embedded in the ability to distinguish between promotion and endorsement. Proponents of Proposal No. 05-26 say it provides that distinction and in fact is easier to interpret than current rules.

But others, including some Board members, believe the activities could project an “implied endorsement” that compromises the principle of amateurism.

Board members, however, did acknowledge the importance of existing relationships with corporate entities in helping fund the intercollegiate athletics enterprise. They also talked about the way higher education itself engages in corporate relationships, and they acknowledged that sponsorships in the educational arena don’t necessarily translate into university endorsement of that commercial entity.

One Board member pointed out that the difference between applying the concept to education and athletics is that not all student-athletes have the same commercial value as students do, and that the high-profile student-athletes might be the ones subject to exploitation under the revised model.

Interestingly, Divisions II and III adopted the proposal by overwhelming margins at their January 9 business sessions. While the Division I presidents did not decide the matter during their deliberations, they did realize that the ensuing comment period will be an important one for Proposal No. 05-26 — and that presidents will have to be the ones to decide on the right approach.

NCAA President Myles Brand advised thoughtful discussion in the coming months. “Whatever we do,” he said, “we need a proper educational approach. Quite frankly, it’s far more difficult to interpret what we have now than what’s being proposed. But wherever we wind up, we’ll have to provide better education locally as to how this is to be activated.”

Other highlights

Division I Board of Directors

January 9/Indianapolis

*  Deliberated but deferred until April an appeal from Bradley University regarding the use of the school’s nickname (the Braves). A staff review committee appointed by the Executive Committee retained Bradley on the list of institutions subject to restrictions established by an Executive Committee policy for schools whose mascots or nicknames are deemed to be hostile or abusive. Bradley officials appealed the ruling.

*  Discussed the January 7 override vote and agreed that the process worked as intended. However, some Board members noted that while the override provision is a proper mechanism within the structure, to have it used repeatedly would not be in the Board’s best interests. Thus, members suggested that for future overrides, a smaller representative group should convene beforehand to pursue a compromise that might mitigate the need for a roll-call vote.

*  Ratified the appointment of the following presidents to begin terms on the Board that extend through April 2010: James Barker, Clemson University; Shirley Raines, University of Memphis; and Michael McFarland, College of Holy Cross. (McFarland fills an existing vacancy through April 2008.)

*  Ratified the appointment of the following members to begin terms on the Management Council that extend through April 2010: Shane Lyons, associate commissioner, Atlantic Coast Conference; Karen Morrison, associate athletics director, University of Colorado, Boulder; Judy MacLeod, associate commissioner, Conference USA; Robert DeCarolis, athletics director, University of Oregon; Greg Sankey, compliance coordinator, Southeastern Conference; McKinley Boston, athletics director, New Mexico State University; Peter Fields, athletics director, Montana State University-Bozeman; David Langford, athletics director, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Metropolitan Campus; Peg Hefferan, associate athletics director, Wagner College; Patrick Nero, commissioner, America East Conference; and Greig Denny, athletics director, Radford University.