National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
AEC Cabinet gathers input to frame future agenda
|
By Michelle Brutlag Hosick
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
The Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet spent its February meeting discussing issues with various constituencies, including a half-day workshop involving the financial aid subcommittee and representatives from the broader financial aid community.
Those discussions will help the cabinet identify general topics that could become part of a legislative, education and policy agenda in the coming months.
The subcommittee on financial aid conducted a workshop before the full cabinet meeting that convened individuals from the institutional financial aid community, conference representatives, institutional athletics administrators and student-athletes to discuss various financial aid issues. The group hoped to improve communication between athletics and the financial aid community.
The discussion included a brief history of the NCAA’s financial aid bylaws and an explanation of the basic aid premises under which the Association operates. Participants brainstormed in small groups about particular topics the Association regulates, including institutional aid and need-based aid, cost of attendance and maximum limits on aid. Other topics were period of awards, processing countable aid and calculating room and board. Outside scholarships, resources and education, the one-year period legislation, international student financial aid, summer aid and Compliance Assistant for the Internet (CAi) also were raised.
The group listed pros and cons about the regulations governing each area and forwarded a list of potenial improvements in the area of financial aid to the subcommittee.
The subcommitte members initatied the workshop as a way to increase communication with those working directly with NCAA financial aid legislation and institutional financial aid.
The financial aid subcommittee reviewed feedback from the event and began identifying priorities in each of the 10 areas discussed in small groups. At its next meeting in June, the subcommittee will propose a plan for future legislation, education and policy and its overall approach for the next several years.
Other subcommittees also met with outside groups to gain input on issues that might take a legislative or policy form at some point in the future. The agents and amateurism subcommittee spoke with representatives from the tennis community, including David Benjamin, executive director of the Intercollegiate Tennis Association, about the ongoing issue of student-athletes receiving awards, and student-athletes’ pre- and post-enrollment experiences.
The group also discussed the student-athlete reinstatement process and the new amateurism certification process, which will certify domestic and international prospects (including transfers) who are enrolling for the first time at an NCAA institution this fall.
The continuing-eligibility subcommittee met with Phil Hughes, president-elect of the National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics and an associate athletics director at Kansas State University.
The discussion centered on the impact of the academic-eligibility model that extends the “sliding scale” for core grade-point average and test-score performance and requires student-athletes to complete a certain percentage of progress-toward-degree requirements at the end of each academic year.
Some people have criticized the requirement that a student-athlete complete 40 percent of his or her degree before the start of the junior year. Opponents believe the obligation prevents student-athletes from either pursuing a major they desire or from changing out of a major that isn’t quite what they had hoped it would be. However, NCAA research indicates most student-athletes believe that participation in athletics did not hamper their ability to major in whatever they wanted.
The group also discussed the impact the progress-toward-degree progression has on transfer students, particularly those who transfer from a two-year institution to a four-year institution.
Cabinet members also heard from Todd Leyden, the president of the new NCAA Eligibility Center. Leyden discussed the creation of the center, which will bring the initial-eligibility and amateurism certification function together later this year. The initial-eligibility certification is currently performed by the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse, administered by the nonprofit American College Testing, Inc. The contract with ACT expires October 31.
Leyden told cabinet members that the changes will better integrate the academic and amateurism functions the NCAA provides for prospects and will create a more efficient process. He anticipates that combining the two procedures will improve service to the membership and the public, as well as convey NCAA values and commitment to higher education to prospects’ parents.
Cabinet members learned that the new center will be a separate entity from the Association, though Leyden will report to a board of directors composed of NCAA senior staff. The new center will not develop policy or hear appeals — those functions will remain with the NCAA staff.
The cabinet also discussed proposed changes to the Division I governance structure. Members were concerned that some of the changes might not achieve the governance subcommittee’s desired outcomes. The current proposal would break the AEC Cabinet and the Championships/Competition Cabinet into six smaller groups to support a leadership council and a legislative council that would replace the Management Council.
Current AEC Cabinet members agree that the new governance system should provide clarity, but they are not convinced the proposed changes would achieve that goal better than the current structure.
February 12-14/Tucson, Arizona
The cabinet reviewed the following legislative proposals, including those referred by the Management Council:
Those discussions will help the cabinet identify general topics that could become part of a legislative, education and policy agenda in the coming months.
The subcommittee on financial aid conducted a workshop before the full cabinet meeting that convened individuals from the institutional financial aid community, conference representatives, institutional athletics administrators and student-athletes to discuss various financial aid issues. The group hoped to improve communication between athletics and the financial aid community.
The discussion included a brief history of the NCAA’s financial aid bylaws and an explanation of the basic aid premises under which the Association operates. Participants brainstormed in small groups about particular topics the Association regulates, including institutional aid and need-based aid, cost of attendance and maximum limits on aid. Other topics were period of awards, processing countable aid and calculating room and board. Outside scholarships, resources and education, the one-year period legislation, international student financial aid, summer aid and Compliance Assistant for the Internet (CAi) also were raised.
The group listed pros and cons about the regulations governing each area and forwarded a list of potenial improvements in the area of financial aid to the subcommittee.
The subcommitte members initatied the workshop as a way to increase communication with those working directly with NCAA financial aid legislation and institutional financial aid.
The financial aid subcommittee reviewed feedback from the event and began identifying priorities in each of the 10 areas discussed in small groups. At its next meeting in June, the subcommittee will propose a plan for future legislation, education and policy and its overall approach for the next several years.
Other subcommittees also met with outside groups to gain input on issues that might take a legislative or policy form at some point in the future. The agents and amateurism subcommittee spoke with representatives from the tennis community, including David Benjamin, executive director of the Intercollegiate Tennis Association, about the ongoing issue of student-athletes receiving awards, and student-athletes’ pre- and post-enrollment experiences.
The group also discussed the student-athlete reinstatement process and the new amateurism certification process, which will certify domestic and international prospects (including transfers) who are enrolling for the first time at an NCAA institution this fall.
The continuing-eligibility subcommittee met with Phil Hughes, president-elect of the National Association of Academic Advisors for Athletics and an associate athletics director at Kansas State University.
The discussion centered on the impact of the academic-eligibility model that extends the “sliding scale” for core grade-point average and test-score performance and requires student-athletes to complete a certain percentage of progress-toward-degree requirements at the end of each academic year.
Some people have criticized the requirement that a student-athlete complete 40 percent of his or her degree before the start of the junior year. Opponents believe the obligation prevents student-athletes from either pursuing a major they desire or from changing out of a major that isn’t quite what they had hoped it would be. However, NCAA research indicates most student-athletes believe that participation in athletics did not hamper their ability to major in whatever they wanted.
The group also discussed the impact the progress-toward-degree progression has on transfer students, particularly those who transfer from a two-year institution to a four-year institution.
Cabinet members also heard from Todd Leyden, the president of the new NCAA Eligibility Center. Leyden discussed the creation of the center, which will bring the initial-eligibility and amateurism certification function together later this year. The initial-eligibility certification is currently performed by the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse, administered by the nonprofit American College Testing, Inc. The contract with ACT expires October 31.
Leyden told cabinet members that the changes will better integrate the academic and amateurism functions the NCAA provides for prospects and will create a more efficient process. He anticipates that combining the two procedures will improve service to the membership and the public, as well as convey NCAA values and commitment to higher education to prospects’ parents.
Cabinet members learned that the new center will be a separate entity from the Association, though Leyden will report to a board of directors composed of NCAA senior staff. The new center will not develop policy or hear appeals — those functions will remain with the NCAA staff.
The cabinet also discussed proposed changes to the Division I governance structure. Members were concerned that some of the changes might not achieve the governance subcommittee’s desired outcomes. The current proposal would break the AEC Cabinet and the Championships/Competition Cabinet into six smaller groups to support a leadership council and a legislative council that would replace the Management Council.
Current AEC Cabinet members agree that the new governance system should provide clarity, but they are not convinced the proposed changes would achieve that goal better than the current structure.
Other highlights
Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance CabinetFebruary 12-14/Tucson, Arizona
The cabinet reviewed the following legislative proposals, including those referred by the Management Council:
- At the Management Council’s request, the cabinet’s agents and amateurism subcommittee is reviewing Proposal No. 06-26, which would prohibit student-athletes from using the services of an advisor who also serves in any agent capacity. The Council is concerned that the proposal would be too broadly applied.
- The recruiting subcommittee offered no amendments to the one text-messaging proposal still in the legislative process (Proposal No. 06-40), which is a measure from the Ivy Group that would ban the practice. The subcommittee’s own proposal, which proposed time and day limits on computer mediated communication, was defeated last month by the Management Council.
- The recruiting subcommittee also requested that the Legislative Review and Interpretations Committee issue an interpretation that would make a coach’s individual Web site subject to the same regulations imposed on the Web sites operated by institutions.
- The cabinet supported Proposal No. 06-46-A, which requires prospective student-athletes to register with the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse and be placed on the institutional request list before the institution provides an official visit or extends a written offer of athletically related financial aid. The cabinet had sponsored an alternate proposal that would also have required the prospect to submit official high school transcripts through the sixth semester of enrollment. That proposal was defeated last month by the Management Council.
- The cabinet supported Proposal No 06-63-A, which exempts specific international competitions from the application of seasons-of-competition and residency requirements in tennis, and swimming and diving. The cabinet prefers that to Proposal No. 06-63-B, which exempts only the Olympic Games, because the initial legislation is more permissive.
- The cabinet did not support Proposal No. 06-64, which increases the maximum permissible number of contests or dates of competition in which a student-athlete may participate in a season and remain eligible for a hardship waiver to 30 percent or three scheduled or completed contests.
- The cabinet also proposed noncontroversial legislation that would modify the women’s volleyball recruiting calendar to allow evaluations to occur the Sunday after the championship match as long as the evaluation takes place within 100 miles of the championship location.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy