With all the attention being devoted to the four-proposal Life in the Balance legislative package at this year’s Convention, a proposal regarding organized competition is flying under the radar but could have just as much impact.

Indeed, the January 16 Division II business session in Atlanta may best be remembered for the actions delegates take on proposals to streamline seasons and reduce contests in 10 sports, but they’ll also be voting on a revised organized-competition rule that removes compensation as the trigger for seasons of competition.

The proposal (No. 2010-11) more broadly defines activities that constitute organized competition. They include such routine measures as whether official score is kept, team standings or statistics are maintained or team uniforms are used. While those rudimentary factors establish a low threshold for what constitutes organized competition, the parameters are absent of one significant factor, which is whether players receive compensation.

Compensation is part of the existing rule, but the Division II Legislation Committee, which developed the 2010 Convention proposal, and the Division II Presidents Council that sponsored it don’t think compensation accurately determines whether the competition is “organized,” since even players who aren’t paid trigger the rule if their teammates are.

“The advantage gained by participating in organized competition comes from the participation itself rather than whether compensation is involved,” said West Texas A&M President Pat O’Brien, who as a member of the Presidents Council spearheaded a charge to get the current rule changed almost two years ago.

The proposal also introduces a year-long grace period between high school graduation and initial full-time collegiate enrollment during which prospects may engage in organized competition without penalty. The grace period is designed to take some of the guess work out of the system and not disadvantage the more nontraditional students who, for personal or family reasons, do not enroll in college right away.

Some people argue that the change essentially establishes an “age rule” for Division II similar to what exists in Division I, but Management Council Chair Tim Selgo, athletics director at Grand Valley State, said it actually allows prospects, particularly those domestic and international students who aren’t sure of their college plans, more time to make their college choice without compromising their ability to compete.

“But after that – rather than defining organized competition by whether any of the team members are paid – the new definitions are much more black and white,” Selgo said. “So you have a year to test the waters, but after that, participation in organized competition comes with clear consequences.”

While the Division II governance structure wrestled for months over what the change should be, the one consensus from the outset was that the status quo was not acceptable.

At an educational session conducted as part of the 2009 Convention, national office staff members and representatives of the Division II Legislation Committee presented the history of Bylaw 14.2.4.2 and the difficulty that the membership and staff have had applying the regulation, especially since the NCAA Eligibility Center assumed responsibility for certification. The membership submitted about 12 waiver requests related to the bylaw over six years before the establishment of the Eligibility Center but that the number has gone up 400 percent since 2007. In the three years in fact since the Eligibility Center began certifying these cases, 70 penalties were assessed in 2007-08, 161 penalties were assessed in 2008-09, and 185 more have been assessed to date in 2009-10.

Some think those numbers indicate that the Division II membership believes the current rule's scope is too broad.

To complicate matters, institutions often do not discover during the recruitment process that a prospect has delayed enrollment and subjected himself or herself to the organized-competition legislation. That typically is discovered after the Eligibility Center’s amateurism certification staff certifies the prospect (which sometimes occurs even after the prospect has already enrolled at the Division II institution). Thus, institutions often devote recruiting resources to these individuals only to run into eligibility issues later on.

Whether the proposal the governance structure developed through constituent feedback over the last two years is what the membership wants won’t be known until the votes are cast on January 16. But most seem comfortable that the current proposal resolves a problem without compromising the “nontraditional” students that make Division II unique.

“What is so perplexing about the organized-competition discussion is finding a rule that catches the obvious violators without compromising the innocent bystanders,” said Division II Legislation Committee chair Ann Martin, associate director of athletics at Regis (Colorado). “The expanded grace period gives prospective student-athletes a chance to make life decisions without worrying how those decisions will impact their opportunity to participate in Division II athletics.”

Following is an excerpt from a Q&A that the Division II Legislation Committee and national office staff compiled to help educate Division II members about the organized-competition proposal (No. 2010-11) headed to the Convention floor.

Q  If Proposal No. 2010-11 is adopted, when will the NCAA Eligibility Center begin applying the legislation?

A  The Eligibility Center will apply the newly adopted legislation immediately to all certifications that will be final on or after April 1, 2010.

Q  Will a prospective student-athlete be subject to the organized-competition legislation when he or she engages in all of the items listed in the definition or will participation in only one of the activities subject an individual to the legislation?

A  An individual will be subject to the organized-competition legislation if he or she participates in any of the athletics activities considered organized in Proposal No. 2010-11 after the grace period and before initial full-time collegiate enrollment.

Q  Is it permissible for a prospect to be a professional athlete during the one-year grace period and before enrolling in a collegiate institution without being subject to the organized-competition legislation?

A  Yes. Pursuant to Bylaw 12.1.2 (amateur status), before initial full-time collegiate enrollment, an individual may use his or her athletics skill for pay, accept pay or the promise of pay, sign a contract, receive a salary or financial assistance from a professional sports organization or compete on a professional team. 

Q  Is it permissible for a prospect to agree to be represented by an agent during the one-year grace period and before enrolling in a collegiate institution without being subject to the organized-competition legislation?

A  Pursuant to Bylaw 12.3 (use of agents), an individual would jeopardize his or her amateur status if he or she enters into an agreement with an agent (orally or in writing) at any time before exhausting his or her intercollegiate eligibility.

Q  If Proposal No. 2010-11 is adopted, will it be applied retroactively to student-athletes who are currently enrolled at Division II institutions, have eligibility remaining and were subject to the previous organized-competition legislation?

A  No. The effective date for Proposal No. 2010-11 will apply to prospects who are issued a final amateurism certification by the NCAA Eligibility Center on or after April 1, 2010.  Student-athletes who previously enrolled at an NCAA institution and have a final amateurism certification will not be recertified.

Q  Why is the responsibility for notifying prospects and their parents or legal guardians about the organized-competition legislation not included in Proposal No. 2010-2 (recruiting and eligibility – admissions and graduation data, banned drug list and initial-eligibility standards – reports and notification – Eligibility Center) as a responsibility of the Eligibility Center?

A  Prospects often become subject to the organized-competition legislation before registering with the Eligibility Center. Institutions have access to prospects and their parents and legal guardians earlier than the Eligibility Center, and could educate them about the legislation, as they do about a variety of NCAA eligibility subjects.

Q  How does the one-year grace period apply to a prospect who graduates on a nontraditional date from high school (for example, November or December)?

A  The one-year grace period would begin after the date of the prospect’s high school graduation. The next opportunity to enroll would be the winter/spring semester or quarter after the one-year grace period.

Q  May a prospect who is subject to the organized-competition legislation in Proposal No. 2010-11 enroll at a collegiate institution, compete during his or her initial year, then transfer to a Division II institution and be immediately eligible if he or she meets the exception to the academic year in residence requirement?

A  Yes. A prospect may use the exception even if he or she competes at a collegiate institution, provided the prospect spent at least two semesters or three quarters at the collegiate institution and completed an average of at least 12 semester or 12 quarter hours of transferable degree credit for each full-time academic term of attendance at the two-year or four-year collegiate institution.

Q  May an institution file a waiver of the organized-competition legislation for a prospect who is subject to the rule?

A  Yes. An institution may file a Committee for Legislative Relief waiver in an attempt to retain a season(s) of competition or relief of the academic year in residence when mitigating circumstances are present.

Q  May an institution file a CLR waiver for a student-athlete who was previously certified by the NCAA Eligibility Center and subject to the organized-competition legislation that was in effect at the time of certification?

A  No. A student-athlete previously certified by the Eligibility Center under the rule in effect at the time of certification may not seek relief through the CLR waiver process based on the adoption of Proposal No. 2010-11.