National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Division II progresses on skill instruction
Text-messaging amendment also proposed for 2008 Convention
Text-messaging amendment also proposed for 2008 Convention
|
By Gary T. Brown
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
ARLINGTON, Virginia — The Division II Management Council at its July 23-24 meeting came closer to settling — or at least framing — an ongoing debate on out-of-season skill instruction for sports other than football.
Division II has struggled for three years on how best to deregulate current rules in a way that reduces the burden on facilities and keeps student-athletes from participating in sessions at off hours. When Division II defeated a proposal at the 2006 Convention, the matter of skill instruction was referred to the Legislation Committee to gather comprehensive feedback and provide “once-and-for-all” alternatives for 2008.
This year’s debate intensified in April when the Council split the skill instruction proposal in the Presidents Council grouping for 2008 into three parts:
Summit participants noted for example that if PC 3 and 16 were to be approved, a baseball team with three coaches could conceivably accommodate 27 players in skill instruction at one time, as long as the three groups of nine were separated and one coach led each group. That quickly became a competitive-equity concern, since schools with larger coaching staffs would have an advantage.
They also thought the increased number in PC 16 would too closely resemble a full practice, which in turn could create the same facility and student-athlete time-demand concerns the skill-instruction modification was meant to mitigate in the first place. Additionally, the student-athletes felt the idea of “skill” instruction would be lost by permitting larger numbers to participate in the sessions.
If prompted to choose, most summit participants said they would favor PC 3 over PC 16, since the former eased the facility burden while still being in the student-athletes’ best interests. Some were interested, though, in pursuing an alternative that would provide sessions for more than four participants but less than the number of starters. For example, one idea floated was that teams with more than six starters would be allowed six participants for skill instruction, while others would stay with four.
That concept resonated so much with proponents of PC 3 at the Management Council meeting two days later that they amended PC 16 to include the provision for larger rosters and then merged the two proposals into one piece of legislation that would make voting at the Convention easier for delegates. In other words, the choice will be to remain at four participants or allow for the flexibility depending on roster size.
Support for PC 4 was simpler to obtain. Student-athletes at the summit in fact thought it aligned nicely with Division II’s strategic-positioning platform. SAAC member Alex Tiseo from Michigan Tech University said, “We chose DII for a reason, part of which is the balance between academics and athletics. This proposal supports that.”
The Council voted unanimously to move that one forward.
Text messaging
The Division II Management Council also backed modified text-message limits that may provide a middle ground for members who favor outright elimination and others who want no restrictions at all.
The compromise came after a motion to reconsider an earlier decision to ask the Presidents Council to send a proposal to eliminate text messaging (PC 8) to the Convention floor. The proposed amendment would allow text messaging only after a prospect has signed a National Letter of Intent or has signed the institution’s written offer of financial aid or admission.
That seemed to satisfy members who don’t see text messaging as a relevant recruiting tool and others who believe it beats the e-mail/fax alternative for delivering information.
Council members actually discussed the issue twice, first during the review of 17 proposals in the Presidents Council grouping and then again after the motion to reconsider.
Both times, proponents of the ban cited a lack of Student-Athlete Advisory Committee support for text messaging as an effective communication tool in recruiting. SAAC members acknowledged that they text each other all the time, but they don’t want to be recruited that way. Management Council members also saw texting as a numbers game rather than a quality exchange of information.
Opponents of the ban, though, believe younger students see e-mail (which would become the primary mode if texting is eliminated) as archaic, and that the cost concerns over text messaging are overblown. They also see texting as more efficient, thus adding to the work/life balance for coaches.
The vote after reconsideration was closer than the first one, but the resulting discussion led to the amendment that helped both sides reach a comfort level, since it would provide coaches the efficient communication they desire with committed prospects and eliminate the “pester” factor for recruits who have not made their decision.
The Division II Presidents Council will consider the issue during its August 9 conference call, and both the Management and Presidents Councils will review the matter one more time during their fall meetings before the membership decides the issue at the Convention.
Division I approved legislation in April that bans text messaging beginning August 1. Enough override requests were received, however, to require the Board of Directors to reconsider the issue at its August 9 meeting. If the Board upholds its April decision, the text-messaging ban would last at least until a Division I membership vote at a Convention business session January 12.
Other legislative actions
The Council also agreed to recommend sponsorship of a legislative proposal from the Academic Requirements Committee that establishes an early certification process for initial eligibility for prospective student-athletes who clearly meet specified academic benchmarks.
Prospects will be certified if they achieve a test score equal to or greater than 1,000 on the SAT or 85 ACT sum, and, based on a six-semester high school transcript, have a core-course grade-point average of 3.0 or higher in a minimum of 12 core courses in specified areas. If a prospect does not meet those criteria, there will be no waiver process and the prospect will be required to go through the normal initial-eligibility certification procedures.
If approved, the legislation would be effective immediately to allow prospects whose initial full-time enrollment will occur on or after August 1, 2008, to take advantage of the early certification process. Officials estimate the new procedures could result in up to 40 percent of future prospects being moved through the system more efficiently.
Division I is considering similar measures.
Also during their review of the Presidents Council grouping, the Management Council agreed to ask the presidents to withdraw their sponsorship of three proposals.
One (PC 1) specifies that an individual who after full-time collegiate enrollment participates in outside competition during the academic year while representing only himself or herself and not engaging as a member of or receiving expenses from a team is charged with a season of competition. The Management Council after reviewing input from the Legislation Committee believes the proposal as written has a disparate impact on various sports.
The Division II Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee advised the Management Council to ask for withdrawal of an eligibility waiver (PC 6) for student-athletes who are pregnant in light of an Association-wide review of pregnancy issues being conducted by the Committee on Women’s Athletics.
The third proposal the Council recommends be withdrawn (PC 15) involves requiring coaches present at strength and conditioning sessions be certified in CPR and first aid. A similar proposal was defeated (because of a tie vote) at last year’s Convention. The Management Council (based on a recommendation from the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports) decided to wait for a common-provision proposal to be crafted for the 2009 legislative cycle.
The Council also reviewed the five membership proposals submitted for the 2008 Convention and referred them to the appropriate governance committee for further review.
July 23-24/Arlington, Virginia
Division II has struggled for three years on how best to deregulate current rules in a way that reduces the burden on facilities and keeps student-athletes from participating in sessions at off hours. When Division II defeated a proposal at the 2006 Convention, the matter of skill instruction was referred to the Legislation Committee to gather comprehensive feedback and provide “once-and-for-all” alternatives for 2008.
This year’s debate intensified in April when the Council split the skill instruction proposal in the Presidents Council grouping for 2008 into three parts:
- (PC 3) Allowing more than one group of four student-athletes from the same team to participate in skill instruction with their coach(es) in the same or different facilities at the same time (provided there is no co-mingling among the groups).
- (PC 4) Prohibiting all countable athletically related activities outside the playing season one week before the start of finals through the end of the institution’s exam period.
- (PC 16) Allowing the number of participants to equal the number of starters required to field a team in the particular sport.
Summit participants noted for example that if PC 3 and 16 were to be approved, a baseball team with three coaches could conceivably accommodate 27 players in skill instruction at one time, as long as the three groups of nine were separated and one coach led each group. That quickly became a competitive-equity concern, since schools with larger coaching staffs would have an advantage.
They also thought the increased number in PC 16 would too closely resemble a full practice, which in turn could create the same facility and student-athlete time-demand concerns the skill-instruction modification was meant to mitigate in the first place. Additionally, the student-athletes felt the idea of “skill” instruction would be lost by permitting larger numbers to participate in the sessions.
If prompted to choose, most summit participants said they would favor PC 3 over PC 16, since the former eased the facility burden while still being in the student-athletes’ best interests. Some were interested, though, in pursuing an alternative that would provide sessions for more than four participants but less than the number of starters. For example, one idea floated was that teams with more than six starters would be allowed six participants for skill instruction, while others would stay with four.
That concept resonated so much with proponents of PC 3 at the Management Council meeting two days later that they amended PC 16 to include the provision for larger rosters and then merged the two proposals into one piece of legislation that would make voting at the Convention easier for delegates. In other words, the choice will be to remain at four participants or allow for the flexibility depending on roster size.
Support for PC 4 was simpler to obtain. Student-athletes at the summit in fact thought it aligned nicely with Division II’s strategic-positioning platform. SAAC member Alex Tiseo from Michigan Tech University said, “We chose DII for a reason, part of which is the balance between academics and athletics. This proposal supports that.”
The Council voted unanimously to move that one forward.
Text messaging
The Division II Management Council also backed modified text-message limits that may provide a middle ground for members who favor outright elimination and others who want no restrictions at all.
The compromise came after a motion to reconsider an earlier decision to ask the Presidents Council to send a proposal to eliminate text messaging (PC 8) to the Convention floor. The proposed amendment would allow text messaging only after a prospect has signed a National Letter of Intent or has signed the institution’s written offer of financial aid or admission.
That seemed to satisfy members who don’t see text messaging as a relevant recruiting tool and others who believe it beats the e-mail/fax alternative for delivering information.
Council members actually discussed the issue twice, first during the review of 17 proposals in the Presidents Council grouping and then again after the motion to reconsider.
Both times, proponents of the ban cited a lack of Student-Athlete Advisory Committee support for text messaging as an effective communication tool in recruiting. SAAC members acknowledged that they text each other all the time, but they don’t want to be recruited that way. Management Council members also saw texting as a numbers game rather than a quality exchange of information.
Opponents of the ban, though, believe younger students see e-mail (which would become the primary mode if texting is eliminated) as archaic, and that the cost concerns over text messaging are overblown. They also see texting as more efficient, thus adding to the work/life balance for coaches.
The vote after reconsideration was closer than the first one, but the resulting discussion led to the amendment that helped both sides reach a comfort level, since it would provide coaches the efficient communication they desire with committed prospects and eliminate the “pester” factor for recruits who have not made their decision.
The Division II Presidents Council will consider the issue during its August 9 conference call, and both the Management and Presidents Councils will review the matter one more time during their fall meetings before the membership decides the issue at the Convention.
Division I approved legislation in April that bans text messaging beginning August 1. Enough override requests were received, however, to require the Board of Directors to reconsider the issue at its August 9 meeting. If the Board upholds its April decision, the text-messaging ban would last at least until a Division I membership vote at a Convention business session January 12.
Other legislative actions
The Council also agreed to recommend sponsorship of a legislative proposal from the Academic Requirements Committee that establishes an early certification process for initial eligibility for prospective student-athletes who clearly meet specified academic benchmarks.
Prospects will be certified if they achieve a test score equal to or greater than 1,000 on the SAT or 85 ACT sum, and, based on a six-semester high school transcript, have a core-course grade-point average of 3.0 or higher in a minimum of 12 core courses in specified areas. If a prospect does not meet those criteria, there will be no waiver process and the prospect will be required to go through the normal initial-eligibility certification procedures.
If approved, the legislation would be effective immediately to allow prospects whose initial full-time enrollment will occur on or after August 1, 2008, to take advantage of the early certification process. Officials estimate the new procedures could result in up to 40 percent of future prospects being moved through the system more efficiently.
Division I is considering similar measures.
Also during their review of the Presidents Council grouping, the Management Council agreed to ask the presidents to withdraw their sponsorship of three proposals.
One (PC 1) specifies that an individual who after full-time collegiate enrollment participates in outside competition during the academic year while representing only himself or herself and not engaging as a member of or receiving expenses from a team is charged with a season of competition. The Management Council after reviewing input from the Legislation Committee believes the proposal as written has a disparate impact on various sports.
The Division II Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee advised the Management Council to ask for withdrawal of an eligibility waiver (PC 6) for student-athletes who are pregnant in light of an Association-wide review of pregnancy issues being conducted by the Committee on Women’s Athletics.
The third proposal the Council recommends be withdrawn (PC 15) involves requiring coaches present at strength and conditioning sessions be certified in CPR and first aid. A similar proposal was defeated (because of a tie vote) at last year’s Convention. The Management Council (based on a recommendation from the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports) decided to wait for a common-provision proposal to be crafted for the 2009 legislative cycle.
The Council also reviewed the five membership proposals submitted for the 2008 Convention and referred them to the appropriate governance committee for further review.
Other highlights
Division II Management CouncilJuly 23-24/Arlington, Virginia
- Issued an official interpretation stating that student-athletes who enroll as part-time students in courses at another school (for example, online or correspondence courses) after the beginning of the certifying institution’s semester or quarter can not use those hours to satisfy the six-hour rule. However, the hours may satisfy the 12/24-hour rule and the 75/25 rule (the hours must be completed before spring commencement to count for the latter).
- Issued an official interpretation specifying that a medical exam administered by a licensed physician within six months before a prospect’s participation in practice, games or conditioning sessions that the prospect’s high school accepts for the senior season may also be used to satisfy the provision in Bylaw 13 for tryouts.
- Referred to other Division II governance committees for further discussion the idea of allowing freshmen nonqualifiers to receive athletically related financial aid during their first academic year.
- Referred to the Division II Budget and Finance Committee a request for a $50,000 grant to the Minority Organization of Athletics Administrators for professional-development opportunities for ethnic minority athletics personnel.
- Ratified the appointments of Gwen Reeves, the athletics director at Fort Valley State University, as chair of the Association-wide Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee, and Dan Mara, commissioner of the Central Atlantic Collegiate Conference, as chair of the Association-wide Committee on Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct.
- Supported a recommendation from the Division II Championships Committee to maintain the current regionalization model under moratorium. The Championships Committee and Management Council believe the model is fair, equitable and best aligned with the Division II regionalization philosophy. The Division II Presidents Council will consider the matter during its August 9 conference call.
- Approved the following championships site selections: Minnesota State University, Mankato, for the 2008 indoor track and field finals; Missouri Western State University for the 2009 and 2010 women’s basketball Elite Eight; and Truman State University for the 2009 Midwest wrestling regional.
- As has become tradition with the Management Council, members shared examples of an attribute in the strategic-positioning platform at their institutions — this time “passion.” Stephanie Harrison-Dyer told of a coach at Albany State who coaches three sports and had been in charge of the National Youth Sports Program clinics there as well. When NYSP funding was discontinued, he tried to raise funds to keep the clinics going. When that didn’t produce what he wanted, he complained to Harrison-Dyer, who in turn asked why he — a guy who was so busy anyway — cared so much about keeping the program alive. Harrison-Dyer said, “And he looked at me with his gleaming eyes and told me, ‘Because if I don’t, the kids will suffer.’ That’s the kind of passion he brings to our campus and our community every day.”
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy