Presidents effectively put Division I baseball on academic notice April 27 when the Board of Directors called for a comprehensive plan to improve classroom performance in the sport within the next three years.

Board members gave the baseball community a year to present options that address academic concerns by considering transfer rules, season length, financial aid or other issues that may contribute to baseball’s comparatively poor academic standing. Two-year Academic Progress Rate data show baseball as having the third-lowest aggregate APR (behind only football and basketball).

If academic performance doesn’t increase two years after that, the presidents said a significant reduction in games would be likely.

Consideration of such a reduction prompted the discussion in the first place. The debate emanated during cleanup of a proposal initially considered in January that established February 1 as a uniform start date to the regular season and called into question the number of regular-season games. The Management Council favored the start date and supported retaining the current 56-game maximum, but the Board deferred action on a measure to cut the number to 52 until its April meeting.

The number of games has been a sticking point for presidents ever since a concept from the Baseball Issues Committee to extend the season a week later met presidential resistance at the 2005 NCAA Convention. The Board at that time said in fact that it preferred a shorter season, not a longer one.

Some in the baseball community have argued that a 56-game season isn’t the critical contributor to baseball’s academic woes. They cited research in fact that shows little, if any, correlation between a 56-game season and poor academic outcomes. Rather, they say the low equivalency ceiling in baseball (11.7 scholarships) contributes to an accelerated transfer rate, which in turn compromises student-athlete academic performance.

While several Board members weren’t persuaded by the argument that season length wasn’t the primary factor in academic performance, the group acknowledged the collective effects of the other factors and agreed that a broader approach was appropriate. That approach became easier to swallow when NCAA President Myles Brand told Board members that the baseball community was ready to act — and was prepared to suffer season cuts if academic problems aren’t resolved in a timely manner.

The Board agreed, but only after another round of discussion about reducing the number of games anyway. Those arguments did not prevail — though the Board did urge the baseball community to take matters seriously to avoid a more stringent reduction in the future. The presidents said in fact that if academic performance did not increase noticeably in three years, baseball could expect more than a four-game reduction to its regular season.

Interestingly, the Management Council had the chance to address baseball’s perceived transfer issue at its April 10 meeting, but members defeated by an eight-vote margin a proposal to eliminate the sport’s one-time transfer exception.

The Board has the authority to resurrect defeated measures, but no such motion was made at the presidents’ April 27 session.

Other legislative action

In all, the Board acted on 31 legislative proposals at its meeting, primarily because of a more efficient legislative process the Management Council used in January to winnow the number of measures distributed for comment.

Of those, the Board approved 25, defeated four and tabled two. Among those approved was one that allows football teams with 6-6 records to be bowl-eligible beginning this coming season. The proposal became feasible after last year when the Board approved an annual 12th regular-season game in Division I-A. To participate in a particular bowl, the 6-6 team must be a member of a conference that has an existing contract with that sponsoring bowl. If that conference cannot fill its bowl obligations with at least a 6-6 team, then the bowl may seek a replacement team from another league, but that team must have a winning record. Failing that, any 6-6 team would be eligible to fill the spot.

While that proposal passed unanimously, the Board approved by a much narrower margin (9-6-1) legislation specifying that commercial items with names, likenesses or pictures of multiple student-athletes (other than highlight films or media guides) may be sold only at the student-athlete’s institution or at institutionally controlled outlets or outlets controlled by a charitable or educational organization. The legislation precludes items with an individual student-athlete’s name, picture or likeness (for example, jerseys with a student-athlete’s name, bobble-head dolls) from being sold.

That proposal is the result of several discussions with institutional personnel and student-athletes and two national surveys of presidents and chancellors and athletics depart- ment marketing personnel about concerns related to student-athlete exploitation. Survey results indicated that although most institutions are not using student-athletes in that manner, institutions should be held to the same standards as non-institutional entities.

The legislation still allows institutions to provide items with a student-athlete’s name, picture or likeness as part of a marketing or promotional event, such as give-aways at games (posters, schedule cards, bobble-head dolls). The proposal also does not restrict student-athletes from being involved in charitable promotional activities.

The four proposals the Board defeated were ones the Management Council had approved two weeks earlier. One was the addition of a 12th regular-season game for Division I-AA to mirror legislation I-A adopted last April. Interestingly, Division I-AA representatives on the Council voted 8-4 to pass the measure, but the three I-AA presidents on the Board were against it. The latter group, though smaller, carried the larger legislative stick.

The Board also overturned Council votes on Proposal No. 05-49-B regarding the use of nontraditional courses to fulfill progress-toward-degree requirements, Proposal No. 05-164 concerning prospects working at institutional summer camps, and Proposal No. 06-1 eliminating public disclosure of fiduciary relationships between an institution and prospects’ coaches.

The Board tabled a controversial proposal designed to exclude from the Academic Progress Rate cohort any student-athlete who has graduated and still has athletics eligibility remaining (Proposal No. 05-97). Such student-athletes currently earn the retention point on the basis of having graduated, but they are still held accountable for the eligibility point. The proposal from the Big 12 Conference advocated removing those student-athletes from the cohort.

The Management Council did not endorse the proposal, but it did recommend that the Committee on Academic Performance amend its policies to include graduates who earn eligibility points and exclude those who don’t.

Supporters say those student-athletes have achieved the ultimate goal of graduation and should not count against a team’s APR, especially since coaches don’t have as much control over the postgraduate environment. Opponents, though, say that student-athletes who are eligible to compete should be held to a minimum standard of academic performance and that, while graduation is the ultimate academic outcome, ensuring accountability of all student-athletes is an equally important goal.

The CAP was among opponents, staunchly adhering to its core principle that individuals who compete in college sports should be students, and stating that the committee was not going to endorse legislation that would allow otherwise.

But the Board tabled the idea before the presidents showed their hand, asking instead for the CAP to revisit the notion to see if a compromise position could be reached. Final action is expected in August.

Other highlights

Division I Board of Directors

April 27/Indianapolis

• Approved a series of proposals and recommendations from the NCAA Working Group to Review Initial-Eligibility Trends that increase the NCAA’s authority to scrutinize preparatory schools and nontraditional schools that are not subject to state regulations (see story, page 1).
• Convened an executive session to deliberate appeals from Bradley University and the University of Illinois, Champaign, regarding the use of Native American mascots, nicknames and imagery, and provide advice to the Executive Committee (see Executive Committee decision, page 1).
• Voted to defer a proposal to eliminate the I-A and I-AA subdivision labels for football until sufficient replacement nomenclature is presented. Board members on the prevailing side said the vote reflected more discomfort with naming ideas than it did an unwillingness to help strengthen the football brand in each subdivision.
• Approved the Division I budget for 2006-08 that includes increased allocations for the 16 schools that participate in the Division I-AA Football Championship. The funds will allow teams to increase their travel parties by 30 members and provide flexibility for schools to promote more of a bowl-type celebration to enhance the student-athlete experience.
• Charged the staff and the Management Council’s governance subcommittee with developing a legislative schedule that allows the Board to more efficiently deliberate proposals the Council approves by a two-thirds majority and sends to the Board for adoption.