Conferences will no longer be able to use Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund money for athletics-development uses, the Division I Management Council decided at its October 16 meeting in Indianapolis.

The decision to include athletics-development expenses (for example, camps and clinics) on the list of impermissible uses was the result of an extensive review of two years of data by the Conference Commissioners Association. The group of eight conference and campus personnel, including Management Council member and Southeastern Conference Associate Commissioner Greg Sankey, reviewed fund-use reports provided by almost all of the 31 conferences in Division I.

The request was precipitated by a concern from compliance staff members in conference offices that the funds were being used for athletics-development purposes that included sending some student-athletes to basketball camps.

The fund, which distributed $24.5 million to Division I conference offices earlier this year, is designed to help student-athletes meet financial needs that arise because of their participation in intercollegiate athletics, enrollment in an academic curriculum or to recognize a student-athlete’s academic achievement. It is not considered part of a student-athlete’s financial aid package and is not intended to fund existing budget items.

The commissioners determined that because the fund was not designed for athletics-development purposes, those allocations should be prohibited. Specifically precluded would be fees and other expenses for participation in sports camps and clinics; private, sports-related instruction; other athletics-development experiences such as greens fees or batting-cage fees; and participation in a foreign tour. Institutions could continue to pay for passport fees with the fund, though travel and lodging expenses associated with a foreign tour would be prohibited.

Governance structure changes

In addition to reviewing the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund, the Management Council spent time preparing for the NCAA Convention in January. One of the major topics there will be the work of the Council’s governance subcommittee, which is reviewing the governance structure and will request feedback on a proposed change in the current model.

The review was triggered in an effort to help the Division I Board of Directors focus on policy decisions and leadership and to better position the substructure to provide assistance.

With that in mind, the governance subcommittee set out to design a structure that separates the duties of a "leadership council" that would work as an advisory group to the Board from the "legislative council" that would consider all proposed legislation. The two groups would work together to fashion core principles and offer advice to the Board. The two councils would be supported by several topical cabinets.

The two councils would have representatives from each of the 31 Division I conferences and would continue the weighted voting that is used at the Management Council now. Though the group has begun to define the structure, it is not expected that a model will be available for review until conference meetings next spring. Implementation is not expected until 2008.

Council members expressed some concern about diversity requirements that would balance representation (functional, gender, ethnicity) in the structure overall rather than on each committee. Some members were apprehensive about an emphasis on attracting experienced people for work on the retooled councils. Members also worried that limiting leadership roles to only those that have a depth and breadth of experience would slow the development of new leaders.

Legislation preparation

In addition to reviewing the work of the governance subcommittee, the Council prepared for the initial consideration of legislation at the Convention by reviewing some key proposals in the legislative cycle. Among those that generated interest were several regarding student-athletes’ involvement with professional teams.

Two proposals dealt with the receipt of expenses for tryouts with professional teams after enrollment and a third would require men’s basketball student-athletes who declare for the professional draft to withdraw their name within 30 days after the conclusion of the Division I championship.

The professional draft proposal spurred a discussion about the different philosophies regarding the requirements surrounding the draft, specifically whether the time after which a student-athlete declares for the draft should be viewed as a "reflection period" or as a phase of "testing the waters."

Some members felt that current rules allowing student-athletes to stay in the draft and resume intercollegiate athletics participation if they do not hire an agent or are undrafted and provide written notice of their return within 30 days of the draft, favor the student-athletes at the expense of coaches whose programs are often in limbo.

Other proposals of note include one eliminating all forms of indirect communication with a recruit beyond telephone, facsimile and e-mail and another defining and regulating computer-mediated communication such as text messaging.

In other business, the Council forwarded several legislative proposals it regards as noncontroversial to the Division I Board of Directors for consideration. Among them are increasing travel party size in several sports (based on previously approved budget allocations), reducing the size of the tennis committee, allowing for a medical exception for some anabolic agents, adding anti-estrogen agents to the list of banned substances, and making violations of conference rules an institutional violation that does not affect a student-athlete’s eligibility.

• Heard from NCAA President Myles Brand about a letter from the chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee asking the Association to justify its tax-exempt status through a series of questions about the nature of intercollegiate athletics (see story, page 9). Brand said the staff is taking the matter seriously and is crafting its answers carefully. The original deadline of October 20 has been extended by two weeks. Staff will be seeking assistance from officials at institutions and conferences.
• Brand also talked to the Council about a summit on pre-collegiate basketball issues and the possibility of developing a joint initiative to address the environment in youth basketball. The summit included representatives from the National Basketball Association, the NCAA, major shoe companies, USA Basketball, AAU programs, the National Federation of State High School Associations, the National Association of Basketball Coaches, athletics directors and conference commissioners.
• Reviewed a report from the Committee on Academic Performance about developing a grant program to assist institutions in improving their Academic Performance Rate. Members offered mixed feedback to the proposal, including on a possible plan to reallocate some of the Division I Academic Enhancement Fund to pay for the program. The CAP will meet October 23-25 in Indianapolis.