National Collegiate Athletic Association

The NCAA News - News and Features

April 27, 1998

Division I ends coaching employment restriction

Division I Board also OKs athlete employment rule

The NCAA Division I Board of Directors has voted to lift all restrictions on the fourth coaching position in Division I basketball.

The action, taken at the Board's April 21 meeting in Indianapolis, eliminates the last of the employment restrictions associated with the restricted-earnings position other than those related to recruiting activities. Previously, Division I had eliminated salary limitations that were part of the original restricted-earnings coach legislation.

A federal court has ruled that the NCAA violated antitrust laws when it placed compensation limits on the restricted position, which was designed to assist individuals seeking to enter college coaching. Part of the rule was that basketball coaches in the restricted-earnings position could remain in the position only for five years, after which they would be required to vacate the position to make room for another individual seeking to enter college coaching.

The Division I Management Council, in the belief that further litigation was likely if no change was made, voted at its October meeting to eliminate the five-year restriction. The Board, however, did not approve the legislation at that time because it believed that eliminating the five-year restriction would in effect create a third full-time assistant for basketball, which it considered excessive.

In the interim, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the NCAA's appeal of the liability issue and the damages phase of the antitrust case has begun. The plaintiffs are asking for $32 million in damages, plus attorney fees. Damages are trebled under antitrust laws. (The NCAA claims actual damages are less than $1 million; also, the Association plans to appeal the ruling that it violated antitrust law to the U.S. Supreme Court.)

The proposal approved by the Board was exactly the same one it had considered in October, meaning that the proposal already had been through the required 60-day membership comment period required in the Division I legislative process.

Although the legislation technically is not effective until August 1, its effect will be that no coach will be forced to leave his position because of the five-year restriction.

Student-athlete employment

The Board also gave final approval to the revised version of 1997 Convention Proposal No. 62. The revisions, developed by a Management Council subcommittee chaired by Stanford University athletics director Edward Leland, were the same as what had been presented at the NCAA Convention in January, except that the Management Council added a clarification (subsequently approved by the Board) to permit employment earnings for work in the institution's recreational unit to be exempt from team and individual financial aid limits up to $2,000.

"We are delighted to give student-athletes the opportunity to work in this way," said Kenneth A. Shaw, chair of the Board and chancellor at Syracuse University. "We are pleased with the patience of the student-athletes as they allowed us time to work out the implementation details."

While the Board approved the legislation, the consensus was that it may be necessary to modify the rule in the future because of unanticipated effects that may result.

"We said we were going to do this, and we're doing it," Shaw said. "It's a good first step, and we recognize that there likely will be changes as we put the legislation into action and monitor the effects. We should consider this work in progress."

To aid with the implementation of the legislation, the NCAA is continuing to work with a group of conference compliance officers in refining recommendations for monitoring the employment. Suggestions for monitoring will be presented at the NCAA regional rules-compliance seminars this spring.

The Board also asked the Management Council to study the feasibility of increasing the value of a full grant-in-aid to the cost of attendance, with attention being given to the effect of such an action on grants in equivalency sports.

Other actions

The Board also approved a proposal to eliminate the requirement that specifies that if a participating institution has a policy against Sunday competition, the championship schedule must be adjusted to accommodate that institution.

"The Board is sensitive to the interests of those schools that have policy prohibiting Sunday competition," Shaw said. "Those are legitimate institutional issues. However, to single out Sunday as the only day of accommodation ignores the interests of other schools and places a difficult burden on the management of championships competition and the academic best interests of other student-athletes."

Twelve other proposals that had been approved for a second time by the Management Council (see Management Council story, page 10) were approved by the Board as a consent package.

In other actions, the Board used its authority to adopt emergency noncontroversial legislation to permit Division I institutions to participate in exhibition basketball contests against foreign teams and/or "club members" of USA Basketball on or after October 31.

Also, the Board accommodated a request by the Black Coaches Association to permit more than one institution from a particular conference to appear in preseason football games this fall by deleting the bylaw limitation. The Board discussed the conflict that appears to exist between the purpose of deleted Bylaw 30.10.2.10 (which limited participation in such contests to one team per conference annually in order to provide more institutions with the opportunity to compete in such games) and the assertion by television networks and others that the limitation may adversely affect the viability of the preseason contests.

The Board noted that the Management Council has directed the Championships/Competition Cabinet to examine the issue. The Board requested that the cabinet look not only at issues related to selection of teams (for example, whether there should a rotation for selecting the teams or whether teams should be determined through the open market) but that it also should consider the value behind why the restriction was established in the first place.

Nonlegislative business

Three other significant issues were discussed by the Board without any action being taken:

  • It was noted that the Management Council strongly supports the recommendation of the Championships/Competition Cabinet to expand brackets and field sizes in several Division I sports. The recommendation is being reviewed by the Budget/Finance Cabinet and will be considered at the summer meetings of the Management Council and Board.

  • The Board discussed a membership-generated proposal that would eliminate the provision that no Division I subdivision may have more than 50 percent representation on Division I committees. The proposal has been referred to the four Division I cabinets and a Management Council subcommittee for review. Some members of the Board expressed concern about the blanket approach prescribed by the proposal, but they did note that compromise may be possible to remedy particular problems.

  • The Board reviewed a survey designed to assist with planning for the 1999 NCAA Convention. It discussed the importance of involvement by chief executive officers in the legislative process, but it also noted that one of the purposes of Division I restructuring was to reduce the need for CEOs to attend the Convention. In that sense, members noted that a lack of CEO attendance may reflect satisfaction with the new system.

    Among the possibilities discussed for the Convention was conducting conference meetings in conjunction with the event and reordering the order of business so that conference meetings could be more directly involved in the legislative process.

    Other highlights

    Division I Board of Directors

    April 21/Indianapolis

  • Reviewed goals and objectives in the Division I strategic planning process. The Board received the report as a working document and encouraged the Strategic Planning Cabinet to work with the Division I Management Council in its refinement.

  • Expressed enthusiasm for a new Division I budget format.

  • Directed the Management Council and staff to review seasons-of-competition waiver policies employed by the Administrative Review Subcommittee and report to the Board in August about whether they provide adequate flexibility and opportunity for reasonable discretion.

  • Directed the staff to work with higher education associations to review the application of Senate Bill 474 (Internet gambling) to assure that the proposed federal legislation does not compromise freedom of expression.

  • Asked the staff to report to the Board any recommendations for policies that related to athletics apparel manufacturers that provide uniforms or shoes to intercollegiate athletics programs.

  • Granted a waiver at the request of the Infractions Appeals Committee of the restriction that no more than 50 percent of its membership can come from any one subdivision. The Board included in the waiver a requirement that not all of the committee's members (other than the public member) can come from a single subdivision.