BOSTON -- As the Division II Student-Athlete Committee evolves, its greatest attribute becomes increasingly clear: It is a group with a plan.

The SAAC has become a highly organized body with clearly identified legislative positions and both short- and long-term strategic plans. At the fourth Division II Student-Athlete Summit July 22-23, not only were the goals and objectives effe ctively committed to paper, representatives of the 22-member SAAC were able to articulate and defend their positions.

Prospective legislation was considered from an often enlightening student-athlete perspective. For example, the student-athletes supported a financial aid deregulation proposal to eliminate the requirement that an institution must count employee dependent tuition benefits against individual and institutional limits. "The proposal benefits student-athletes," Kevin Listerman, the SAAC chair from Northern Kentucky University, told Division II Management Council members. "This way, they are being treated like any other student. It also allows coaches more money to recruit more players and more opportunity for athlete participation."

They also supported another financial aid deregulation proposal to permit an institution to count financial aid awarded to a multiple sport student-athlete in either sport in which the individual participates. The rationale, again, was that the proposal could assist institutions in better allocating resources and thus increase student-athlete participation.

Indeed, the student-athletes consistently demonstrated an ability to evaluate issues well beyond the surface. They opposed a membership-sponsored proposal that would exempt from individual and institutional limits all on-campus employment earnings outside of the athletics department or athletics facility up to $2,000 above a full grant-in-aid. In the alternative, they supported a deregulation proposal that would exempt all on-campus employment earnings from both individual and institutional financial aid limits.

In opposing the membership proposal, they cited the argument against limiting on-campus financial aid (athletes should not be penalized because a potential for abuse exists), but they added an interesting twist: Student-athletes make the best employees for athletics departments since they are the students with the most knowledge about athletics; further, they benefit more than other students from such employment since it makes them better prepared for careers in athletics administration.

The Summit produced moments when the athletes disagreed with administrators. One proposal would permit unlimited phone calls to prospects who have signed financial aid or admission agreements, but the athletes oppose the proposal because athletes can sign multiple agreements and thus be subject to unlimited phone calls from multiple sources. Several athletics directors, concerned about the compliance challenges that the current legislation poses, engaged in direct debate about the athletes' position, making a strong case that the potential for excessive phone calls was largely theoretical and that student-athletes can control the issue simply by not signing any financial aid or admission agreements. But the student-athletes held their position, eventually prompting a comment from one Management Council member about whether the real problem may be permitting unlimited phone calls from the athletics department to any athlete.

Ultimately, after a lengthy discussion, the Management Council voted to continue with its support of the telephone-call proposal. Most Management Council members support the proposal from a compliance perspective and therefore believe it is worth pursuing. The Management Council likely will arrange a meeting with SAAC representatives later this summer to try again to reach common ground on the issue.

It is possible that the groups may continue to disagree, which is not necessarily a bad outcome, according some Management Council members.

"I thought the Summit was much better this year and that the student-athletes were much better prepared than in the past," said Ed Harris of West Texas A&M University. "But will we always see things the same way? Sometimes we'll come from an athletics administrator's perspective and see things differently, and that's OK."

James Watson, athletics director at West Liberty State College, agreed. "I'm in favor of allowing this to play out on the Convention floor," he said. "Let the student-athletes make their presentation. They're going to win some and they're going to lose some."

Horizon Plan

Not only were the athletes highly organized on legislative issues, they also developed what they call their "Horizon Plan," which involves several long-term projects to benefit student-athletes.

The key elements of the Horizon Plan involve:

Availability of athletically related aid in a student-athlete's fifth year.

Championship bracket expansion.

Initiation of a "Do You Know the Rules?" campaign to educate athletes on rules that exist for their benefit.

Provision of money and other resources for conference student-athlete advisory committees.

As it happens, the Horizon Plan aligns nicely with a plan submitted by the Budget and Finance Committee to the Management and Presidents Councils. The budget committee suggests funding degree-completion scholarships, championship bracket expansion and greater support of conference SAACs, which seemed to satisfy the student-athletes about the division's financial commitment to student-athlete welfare.

In fact, the athletes' greatest task at hand may involve how they relate with other student-athletes. Although the national SAAC members are highly engaged on NCAA matters, issue apathy among student-athletes remains a concern at both the institutional and conference levels. So does institutional and conference support of student-athlete advisory committees.

Characteristically, however, SAAC members are busy developing plans to rectify that problem. They have developed legislative grids to assist their peers in understanding proposed Convention legislation and are sharing techniques that have been successful in achieving greater student-athlete involvement on campuses and in their conferences. They also are keenly interested in the development of conference and national SAAC Web sites.

Patricia P. Cormier, president of Longwood College and the new Presidents Council liaison to the SAAC, came away from her first Summit with new respect for the athletes.

"Any faculty member will tell you that you learn the most from your students," she said, "and I have learned a lot in the last two days."

Listerman returned the compliment. "We have a wonderful marriage in Division II of the Presidents Council, the Management Council and the student-athletes, and it is because of the leadership of the presidents."

Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee timeline

The legislative timeline of the Division II Student-Athlete Advisory Committee between now and the 2001 Convention:

August

SAAC members submit reports to conference commissioners about last year's activities and report on recommendations and expectations for the approaching year.

NCAA Second Publication of Proposed Legislation grids sent to national SAAC members.

Legislative grids distributed to conference SAAC representatives.

Ongoing dialogue with NCAA staff, institutional compliance officers and Management Council representatives about 2001 Convention proposals. Discussion encouraged through listserve, phone communication, in-person meetings, e-mail and letters.

November

Week before Thanksgiving: Legislative grids due to the national office (include box on grids to identify proposals needing further discussion at the Convention).

Submission of agenda items for Convention SAAC meeting.

December

SAAC liaisons assemble draft of SAAC legislative proposal position sheet.

Convention Official Notice included in agenda mailing.

January

SAAC determines final positions on legislation. Review sheet updated and speakers for each proposal included.

Convention meeting. Speeches prepared for Convention debate.