The Division II Legislation Committee came closer to figuring out what to do with the division’s organized-competition rule Tuesday when it narrowed down the primary concepts it would like to see in whatever legislative proposal ends up hitting the 2010 Convention floor.

Among the significant components the Legislation Committee forwarded to the Management Council for feedback at the latter’s April 20-21 meeting are parameters determining what constitutes “organized” competition and an expansion of the grace period during which prospective student-athletes may participate in such competition without triggering seasons-of-competition withholdings.

After the Management Council weighs in, the Legislation Committee will use its June meeting to turn the concepts into draft legislation that will make its way through the governance structure and culminate in a January vote.

The proposed definitions of organized competition are purposefully broad and establish a rather low threshold. They include such routine measures as whether official score is kept, team standings or statistics are maintained or team uniforms are used. But the parameters are absent of one significant factor, which is whether players receive compensation.

Compensation is indeed part of the existing rule, but Legislation Committee members and other Division II governance officials don’t think it accurately determines whether the competition is “organized” since even players who aren’t paid trigger the rule if their teammates are. The compensation issue in fact was a big part of why Division II took up the review of organized competition in the first place last spring when people began wondering whether the advantage gained by participating in organized competition comes from the participation itself rather than whether compensation is involved.

The issue, though, with such rudimentary definitions is that they figure to capture “unintended” targets. While the rule is meant to catch those who come to a Division II institution with a competitive advantage, it may also catch nontraditional students who delay enrollment for noncompetitive reasons (such as lack of financial resources to attend college or family situations).

To mitigate that concern, the Legislation Committee wants to extend by one year the three-month “grace period” that exists between high school graduation and college enrollment. In other words, students who graduate from high school in May 2010 would have until fall 2011 to matriculate in college (and would be able to participate in organized competition during that time). After that, prospects would sacrifice seasons of competition for each subsequent year of delayed enrollment if they participate in an activity that meets one of the conditions of organized competition.

Committee Chair Ann Martin, assistant director of athletics at Regis (Colorado), acknowledged that the expanded grace period lengthens the time in which prospects can gain the very competitive advantage the legislation is trying to curtail, but she said it appears to be the best way – and the fairest application – to protect the type of 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,” she said. “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.”

It also address cases in which prospects attempt to avoid triggering the rule by enrolling and then immediately dropping out, Martin said. The committee in fact talked at length about cases of “discontinued collegiate enrollment” but decided to delay additional proposals until next year when the group can include a review of existing post-enrollment legislation.

Legislation Committee members also agreed that another significant part of the organized-competition proposal should be maintaining the division’s existing academic year-in-residence rule, even if the expanded grace period is adopted. That could set up a scenario in which a student-athlete who had a season of competition withheld because he or she participated in organized competition would also have to sit out a year in residence before being eligible to compete. But committee members like the year in residence as an indication of a student-athlete’s academic commitment and for the fact that it allows the institution to confirm the prospect’s progress toward degree. However, the committee discussed adding an exception for students who have demonstrated a commitment to academics by enrolling in a collegiate institution before coming to Division II.

The committee’s discussion on organized competition was highly directed. Committee members based their overall discussion on ample feedback from a wealth of Division II constituents over the past year, including the Presidents and Management Councils, and the Division II Athletics Directors Association and the Conference Commissioners Association. Faculty groups and other Division II governance committees also reviewed the organized-competition concepts.

Just about all who have reviewed the issue cite the need for change. 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.

“The need for change certainly has been well-vetted,” Martin said. “We believe that the division-wide input will lead to a meaningful and representative proposal come January.”