National Collegiate Athletic Association

Latest News

« back to 2011 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index

DI Legislative Council to consider variety of legislative changes

By Michelle Brutlag Hosick
NCAA.org

The Division I Legislative Council will tackle a hefty agenda at its Jan. 12-13 meeting at the NCAA Convention in San Antonio.

More than 125 proposals are on the docket covering topics ranging from amateurism and academic issues to membership standards and recruiting rules.

Key among the proposals is No. 2010-26, which would change the rules regarding the use of student-athlete likenesses in promotions. The measure aims to accommodate advancements in technology and facilitate more authentic promotions associating schools with their sponsors while maintaining the Association’s fundamental principles of prohibiting exploitation of student-athletes by commercial enterprises.

The Council, which discussed all the proposals at its October meeting, took no position on the measure, while the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee has indicated opposition.

The proposal, which follows the principles developed by the 2008 Presidential Task Force on Commercial Activity in Division I Athletics, continues many of the safeguards contained within the current legislation that allows the use of a student-athlete’s name or likeness for promotions, advertisements and media activities if specific conditions are met.

Among current conditions carried over into the new legislation are:

• Student-athlete permission.
• Athletics director approval for each activity.
• No missed class time.
• No endorsement of a commercial product or service.

The proposal takes the core requirements and adds refinements, including the following:

• Promotional activity by a sponsor of an institution, conference or the NCAA must clearly identify the commercial entity’s sponsor affiliation (for example, an official sponsor of the institution or event) when student-athlete images are shown.
• Promotions that include alcoholic beverages, tobacco products or gambling interests are not permitted.

The Amateurism Cabinet sponsored the legislation.

The Council will also consider 2010-42, which would prohibit coaches from making verbal offers of aid before July 1 following a prospect’s junior year. The proposal also would require institutions to have a five-semester or seven-quarter high school transcript on file before a verbal offer can be made.

The Legislative Council expressed early opposition to the measure because of potential difficulties in monitoring and enforcement. The SAAC gave its early support to the proposal because members believe the Association should move away from early recruiting.

The Council will cast votes on proposals strengthening academic standards for men’s basketball (2010-58 and alternatives) and football (2010-59 and alternatives). Both sets of proposals originated with working groups dedicated to finding ways to improve academic performance in the specific sports. The groups, composed of various stakeholders within the sports, spent considerable time studying the issue, and several conferences also offered alternatives that slightly tweak the final proposals.

The Basketball Academic Enhancement Group endorsed a “retention model-summer school” proposal, which would require institutions to assess incoming men’s basketball student-athletes to identify those who need an academic “head start” and then require those student-athletes to enroll in six hours of summer school (and pass three hours) to be eligible for competition in the fall semester. Institutions would set their own criteria for the assessment. The recommendation also included additional summer access for skill development with coaches and a life skills requirement.

The Academics Cabinet sponsored an alternative that would require the student-athletes to pass all six hours of summer school. The Mountain West Conference sponsored a separate alternative creating exceptions for service academies. The SAAC has expressed early support for the concept, while the Council took no early position.

The Football Academic Working Group would require football student-athletes to earn nine semester-hours (or eight quarter-hours) of credit in the fall to be eligible for the entire following season. If the minimum standard isn’t met, the student-athlete would lose eligibility for the first four games the following fall, but would have the opportunity to earn back two of those games if   the student-athlete earns 27 credit hours before the season begins.

An alternate proposal offered by the Big East would allow the student-athlete who earns 27 credit hours in the spring and summer terms to play the entire season. Another alternate proposal sponsored by the Atlantic Coast Conference would also allow the student-athlete who earns 27 credit hours in the spring and summer terms to play the entire following season, but only once in his career.

The SAAC also threw its early support behind the football proposals. The Football Championship Subdivision members of the Council support the original Football Academic Working Group proposal, while the Football Bowl Subdivision members have taken no position.

The Council will also consider a new set of membership standards (Prop. No. 2010-100), developed by the Leadership Council. The standards create a new path to Division I membership, notably requiring at least five years of active Division II membership before beginning the process of becoming a Division I member. The Council supported the proposal at its October meeting.

The Council will also cast its first votes on a proposal members urged the Board to sponsor after its October meeting. Prop. No. 2010-110 would eliminate the ability for incoming student-athletes to decline a test for the sickle cell trait. The proposal requiring the test for incoming student-athletes unless they sign a waiver declining the test was passed during the 2009-10 legislative cycle and went into effect on Aug. 1.

Initiated by the Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports, the proposal to withdraw the waiver option came before the Council as noncontroversial in October. Given the lengthy debate on the issue just a year ago, the Council declined to consider it noncontroversial, but deemed it important enough to ask the Board (the only body that can sponsor legislation after the summer submission period) to put the measure into the current cycle.

The Board agreed.

Other proposals of note include:

• Prop. No. 2010-12, which would eliminate the need for Division I delegates to attend the NCAA Convention to vote on an override.
• Prop. Nos. 2010-16, 2010-18 and 2010-20 and various alternatives, which would set limits on noncoaching personnel in the sports of basketball, FCS football and FBS football.
• Prop. No. 2010-24, which would require student-athletes interested in “testing the waters” of the NBA draft to remove their name from consideration before the first day of the spring National Letter of Intent signing period.
• Prop. Nos. 2010-34 and 2010-49, which would alter the April recruiting period in men’s basketball (expected to be referred to the Leadership Council for its holistic study of the men’s basketball recruiting model).
• Prop. No. 2010-51A,  2010-51B and 2010-60, which would update rules regarding the use of nontraditional coursework for continuing eligibility standards.

The Legislative Council has the opportunity to approve, defeat or send each of the proposals it will review out for comment. In order for a proposal to be approved, it must receive a two-thirds vote. The Division I Board of Directors has the opportunity to review all legislative action before it is considered final.

Final votes will be cast in April.