National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Proposal to increase core courses passes first test
|
By Gary T. Brown
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
The Division II Management Council positioned its membership to decide on two expansion concepts at its April 16-17 meeting in Indianapolis — one regarding the classroom and another a country.
On the latter, the Council agreed to sponsor legislation for the 2008 Convention to facilitate Division II membership from selected Canadian schools. The action comes on the heels of the Executive Committee agreeing to a 10-year pilot study regarding international membership. Division II is the only division so far to have proposed legislation.
Under the division’s new membership process, which requires new or reclassifying members to complete at minimum a two-year exploratory period and at least one year of provisional membership, a Canadian school could become an active Division II member as early as 2011 if the membership opens the door in January.
The other expansion concept is a recommendation to increase the number of core-courses required for initial eligibility from 14 to 16. The Management Council asked the Presidents Council to sponsor a proposal that would be effective August 1, 2013, providing adequate notice and giving next year’s eighth-grade class the heads-up necessary to calculate the academic progression for high school.
Council members endorsed the core-course recommendation from the Academic Requirements Committee after reviewing research indicating that most high school graduates already are completing at least 16 core courses. The average number of core courses taken by Division II prospects in fact has risen from 15.85 in 1994 to 17.86 in 2005.
The proposal requires one of the additional two courses to be taken in either English, math, or natural or physical science. The Council defeated an amendment to include social sciences among those options. The other additional course may be from any core area.
The Council had to work through some issues, though, before moving the proposal along, since a few members weren’t sure the regions they represent could manage the increase. A straw vote early in the discussion in fact did not produce the two-thirds support required to move the proposal on to the Presidents Council. But the prevailing argument was that the issue was the membership’s to decide and that the Council should not be what keeps the proposal from proceeding to the Convention floor.
More skill instruction debate
Other legislative actions included sponsorship of a proposal to eliminate text messaging and instant messaging as a part of the recruiting process. The Division I Management Council approved a similar proposal at its April 16 meeting.
The Council also considered a proposal from the Division II Legislation Committee dealing with skill instruction, a concept Division II has struggled with before. The proposal would prohibit all countable athletically related activities outside the playing season, as well as one week before and through the completion of final exams. In sports other than football, the proposal specifies the number of participants in skill instruction sessions at any one time as the number of starters in each sport. Additionally, more than one group may participate in skill instruction at different facilities or at the same facility, as long as the groups remain separate.
As with previous proposals regarding skill instruction, Council members wrestled with the particulars — so much so in fact that they had to separate the proposal into its three components (timing, number of participants and the number of sessions allowed at one time) to work through the issue.
Some argued against that approach, urging the Council to remember that the proposal from the Legislation Committee represented a broad compromise of many positions from other constituents accumulated through two years of debate ranging from eliminating skill instruction altogether to adding full practices. This was not the Legislation Committee acting alone, they said, but an informed balance gleaned from extensive discussion.
But the Council could not reconcile its differences to the point that all members felt comfortable with the proposal as written. Thus, as of now, it will be presented in three parts.
That could change, however, since the issue will be on the Council’s agenda again this summer when it meets with the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. At that time, the Council may choose to structure the proposal differently. Conferences also would have the usual opportunity to amend legislative proposals this fall.
Early eligibility certification
During a presentation regarding the NCAA Eligibility Center, Council members supported a process by which Divisions I and II prospective student-athletes who clearly meet academic standards after their junior year in high school can be certified early for NCAA eligibility.
The concept, which the Management Council endorsed and sent to the Presidents Council for approval, charges the Division II Academic Requirements Committee with discussing the concept further with the option of proposing legislation for the 2008 Convention that would apply a permanent standard based on a combination of six-semester core courses, grade-point average and test scores.
As a precursor to that legislation, an automatic initial-eligibility waiver would be established for the entering class of 2007 that would certify prospects as long as they achieve certain criteria. The new process is expected to permit the immediate movement of about 40 percent of Divisions I and II prospects to final certification.
The early certification proposal also aligns more with current college admissions practices. Many schools frequently admit students during their senior year after receiving the six-semester high school transcript and test score.
In addition, under the current structure, final certifications tend to occur within a narrow window, primarily June through August, and many at a time during which schools are conducting preseason practice and preparing for the fall season. Certifications at that late date also defeat one of the purposes of early certification, which was to help advise a prospect with regard to academic behavior (addressing deficiencies in core courses, for example). Most final certifications occur too late to mitigate those deficiencies.
The Division II Management Council was assured that the review of prospect records for academic irregularities would continue to be conducted and still could result in a prospect who meets the new criteria not being granted the waiver. In other words, the early certification doesn’t give a prospect an automatic pass if irregularities (such as possible academic fraud) warrant further review.
The Division I Board of Directors and the Division II Presidents Council will consider the concept at their meetings later this month.
April 16-17/Indianapolis
When Division II introduced its strategic platform that identifies key attributes and behaviors of Division II institutions, one of the concerns was that the document would enjoy early momentum but then be shelved, as many of these strategic-planning documents inevitably are. But the Management Council is doing its part to keep the platform alive and dynamic by not only referring to it before every meeting, but having members explain how their institutions are activating the attributes. That accomplishes two things: It allows schools that have taken it upon themselves to activate the platform an audience with which to share success stories and it provides the impetus for schools that may not understand the real-life applications to learn ideas.
It became clear early in the April 16 Council session that applying the platform has its advantages. One member provided the example of a Division II president urging his coaches to bring prospective student-athletes to his office during recruiting visits so that he can explain to the prospect and parents how the school is prepared to offer an experience that aligns with the platform. Those meetings have proved effective, since at least one recruit subsequently informed the school that it swayed her decision to select the school.
“It’s the kind of real-life example that serves as a wake-up call that says if you ignore the platform, you may start missing some opportunities,” said Division II Vice President Mike Racy.
At the April 16 session, Council members discussed how they are activating the key attribute “resourcefulness.” Some of the comments included efficiencies with human resources to accomplish a variety of tasks and integrating student-athletes more with other campus activities. One member said her institution was focusing on student-athlete relationships with the rest of the student body to build campus-wide collaboration and camaraderie.
Others cited using the CHAMPS/Life Skills program to focus on career development and building resumes.
Racy said the session reiterated the importance of the Council as a leadership body bringing the platform to life. “The reason we treat the platform this way is because the Council needs to be prepared to explain to different audiences what the elements mean rather than just read the document. It’s essential for them to provide real-life examples of how this platform represents what goes on in Division II.”
On the latter, the Council agreed to sponsor legislation for the 2008 Convention to facilitate Division II membership from selected Canadian schools. The action comes on the heels of the Executive Committee agreeing to a 10-year pilot study regarding international membership. Division II is the only division so far to have proposed legislation.
Under the division’s new membership process, which requires new or reclassifying members to complete at minimum a two-year exploratory period and at least one year of provisional membership, a Canadian school could become an active Division II member as early as 2011 if the membership opens the door in January.
The other expansion concept is a recommendation to increase the number of core-courses required for initial eligibility from 14 to 16. The Management Council asked the Presidents Council to sponsor a proposal that would be effective August 1, 2013, providing adequate notice and giving next year’s eighth-grade class the heads-up necessary to calculate the academic progression for high school.
Council members endorsed the core-course recommendation from the Academic Requirements Committee after reviewing research indicating that most high school graduates already are completing at least 16 core courses. The average number of core courses taken by Division II prospects in fact has risen from 15.85 in 1994 to 17.86 in 2005.
The proposal requires one of the additional two courses to be taken in either English, math, or natural or physical science. The Council defeated an amendment to include social sciences among those options. The other additional course may be from any core area.
The Council had to work through some issues, though, before moving the proposal along, since a few members weren’t sure the regions they represent could manage the increase. A straw vote early in the discussion in fact did not produce the two-thirds support required to move the proposal on to the Presidents Council. But the prevailing argument was that the issue was the membership’s to decide and that the Council should not be what keeps the proposal from proceeding to the Convention floor.
More skill instruction debate
Other legislative actions included sponsorship of a proposal to eliminate text messaging and instant messaging as a part of the recruiting process. The Division I Management Council approved a similar proposal at its April 16 meeting.
The Council also considered a proposal from the Division II Legislation Committee dealing with skill instruction, a concept Division II has struggled with before. The proposal would prohibit all countable athletically related activities outside the playing season, as well as one week before and through the completion of final exams. In sports other than football, the proposal specifies the number of participants in skill instruction sessions at any one time as the number of starters in each sport. Additionally, more than one group may participate in skill instruction at different facilities or at the same facility, as long as the groups remain separate.
As with previous proposals regarding skill instruction, Council members wrestled with the particulars — so much so in fact that they had to separate the proposal into its three components (timing, number of participants and the number of sessions allowed at one time) to work through the issue.
Some argued against that approach, urging the Council to remember that the proposal from the Legislation Committee represented a broad compromise of many positions from other constituents accumulated through two years of debate ranging from eliminating skill instruction altogether to adding full practices. This was not the Legislation Committee acting alone, they said, but an informed balance gleaned from extensive discussion.
But the Council could not reconcile its differences to the point that all members felt comfortable with the proposal as written. Thus, as of now, it will be presented in three parts.
That could change, however, since the issue will be on the Council’s agenda again this summer when it meets with the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. At that time, the Council may choose to structure the proposal differently. Conferences also would have the usual opportunity to amend legislative proposals this fall.
Early eligibility certification
During a presentation regarding the NCAA Eligibility Center, Council members supported a process by which Divisions I and II prospective student-athletes who clearly meet academic standards after their junior year in high school can be certified early for NCAA eligibility.
The concept, which the Management Council endorsed and sent to the Presidents Council for approval, charges the Division II Academic Requirements Committee with discussing the concept further with the option of proposing legislation for the 2008 Convention that would apply a permanent standard based on a combination of six-semester core courses, grade-point average and test scores.
As a precursor to that legislation, an automatic initial-eligibility waiver would be established for the entering class of 2007 that would certify prospects as long as they achieve certain criteria. The new process is expected to permit the immediate movement of about 40 percent of Divisions I and II prospects to final certification.
The early certification proposal also aligns more with current college admissions practices. Many schools frequently admit students during their senior year after receiving the six-semester high school transcript and test score.
In addition, under the current structure, final certifications tend to occur within a narrow window, primarily June through August, and many at a time during which schools are conducting preseason practice and preparing for the fall season. Certifications at that late date also defeat one of the purposes of early certification, which was to help advise a prospect with regard to academic behavior (addressing deficiencies in core courses, for example). Most final certifications occur too late to mitigate those deficiencies.
The Division II Management Council was assured that the review of prospect records for academic irregularities would continue to be conducted and still could result in a prospect who meets the new criteria not being granted the waiver. In other words, the early certification doesn’t give a prospect an automatic pass if irregularities (such as possible academic fraud) warrant further review.
The Division I Board of Directors and the Division II Presidents Council will consider the concept at their meetings later this month.
Other highlights
Division II Management CouncilApril 16-17/Indianapolis
- Approved a recommendation from the Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports to recommend sponsorship of legislation that includes “street drugs” in the year-round drug-testing program in all sports in all divisions. Council members noted the provision would require about $825,000 in Association-wide funds (the funds necessary to support the expansion in year-round drug testing require separate approval through the biennial budget process). Council members also supported a penalty structure for student-athletes who test positive for street drugs that includes withholding from 50 percent of competition for the first positive test and a one-year withholding for a second positive test. A third positive would result in permanent loss of eligibility. The Council asked the competitive-safeguards committee for clarification on a related proposal regarding when the period of ineligibility would begin after a positive test, especially as it relates to the Division II “nullification” policy.
- Supported a proposal from the Academic Requirements Committee to specify that a Division II institution will forfeit institutional enhancement funds in the following academic year unless it has submitted, by the applicable deadline, its Academic Performance Census data.
- Agreed to sponsor noncontroversial legislation that would permit the Championships Committee to change travel party size as a matter of committee policy rather than requiring legislative action.
- Based on a recommendation from the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, the Council agreed to recommend sponsorship of legislation that would require Division II institutions to conduct a CHAMPS/Life Skills program (or an equivalent) on campus.
- Approved a fee structure for institutions entering the Division II membership process in fall 2007 and after that requires applicants to pay $24,000 to enter the exploratory year and $12,000 after year two and every year thereafter, regardless of what stage the institution is in the process.
Management Council members walk strategic-platform talk
When Division II introduced its strategic platform that identifies key attributes and behaviors of Division II institutions, one of the concerns was that the document would enjoy early momentum but then be shelved, as many of these strategic-planning documents inevitably are. But the Management Council is doing its part to keep the platform alive and dynamic by not only referring to it before every meeting, but having members explain how their institutions are activating the attributes. That accomplishes two things: It allows schools that have taken it upon themselves to activate the platform an audience with which to share success stories and it provides the impetus for schools that may not understand the real-life applications to learn ideas.
It became clear early in the April 16 Council session that applying the platform has its advantages. One member provided the example of a Division II president urging his coaches to bring prospective student-athletes to his office during recruiting visits so that he can explain to the prospect and parents how the school is prepared to offer an experience that aligns with the platform. Those meetings have proved effective, since at least one recruit subsequently informed the school that it swayed her decision to select the school.
“It’s the kind of real-life example that serves as a wake-up call that says if you ignore the platform, you may start missing some opportunities,” said Division II Vice President Mike Racy.
At the April 16 session, Council members discussed how they are activating the key attribute “resourcefulness.” Some of the comments included efficiencies with human resources to accomplish a variety of tasks and integrating student-athletes more with other campus activities. One member said her institution was focusing on student-athlete relationships with the rest of the student body to build campus-wide collaboration and camaraderie.
Others cited using the CHAMPS/Life Skills program to focus on career development and building resumes.
Racy said the session reiterated the importance of the Council as a leadership body bringing the platform to life. “The reason we treat the platform this way is because the Council needs to be prepared to explain to different audiences what the elements mean rather than just read the document. It’s essential for them to provide real-life examples of how this platform represents what goes on in Division II.”
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy