Division I members at the 2009 Convention will cast ballots for the fourth consecutive year on legislation approved by the Board of Directors but challenged by enough schools to warrant an additional vote.

This year’s issue is legislation the Board adopted in April 2008 that prevents men’s basketball coaches from attending nonscholastic events in April and shortens the contact period in that month. Regarded by presidents as a way to protect prospects’ academic interests and reduce the nonscholastic influences in the lives of high school athletes, the restrictions were challenged by coaches and others who thought the legislation negatively affected programs that used the nonscholastic events as a “one-stop shop” for recruiting.

The legislation took effect August 1.

The override vote will occur at the end of Friday’s Division I Legislative Forum. For a successful override, a five-eighths majority of those Division I delegates present and voting must cast votes to overturn the legislation.

The original proposal emerged from the Division I Basketball Issues Committee and advanced through the governance structure (including committees with coaches as members) on the premise that cleaning up the April period would be in prospects’ best academic interests, especially given the proliferation of nonscholastic events in an unregulated environment.

Army Athletics Director Kevin Anderson, who chairs the Division I Men’s Basketball Issues Committee and supported the legislation from the start, said, “If we have an opportunity for people to take advantage academically, then that’s what they need to do. That’s the priority.”

Anderson said April had become a time in which elite prospects prepared more for the nonscholastic events than their academic commitments. He said coaches were increasingly frustrated with event operators but felt compelled to attend the events to “keep up with the Joneses” in recruiting.

The National Association of Basketball Coaches, previously a proponent of modifying the April contact period, surveyed its membership on the issue last fall, and 61 percent favored the legislation. However, NABC Executive Director Jim Haney said that as the economy has worsened over the past few months, minds may be changing.

The national office received 62 requests to override the proposal, forcing the Board to reconsider it in August. But the presidents stood by their original decision. The newly created Leadership Council agreed with that decision at a meeting in the fall as well.

Haney said that while most of the head coaches surveyed last fall supported the legislation, it was not an overwhelming majority. He believes the coaches at institutions seeking the override were likely opposed from the start.

“I hope that people understand that this isn’t personal against the NCAA or the Board of Directors,” he said. “This is personal to each coach, and the coach can’t submit his own override. It’s been discussed on campuses, with the athletics director and ultimately the president.”