After months of debate among administrators and coaches about the controversial "five/eight" rule in men's basketball, the Division I Management Council has at least temporarily broken the tie.

Addressing the application of a rule that has divided the membership since its inception last year, the Management Council forwarded to the Board of Directors a plan it believes will offer both immediate and long-term relief to the initial-counter rule without compromising its intent.

What the Council is asking the Board to approve is for schools to be afforded up to nine initial grants-in-aid, rather than eight, over the two-year period that began with the most recent recruiting class (which enrolled during the 2002-02 academic year) and extends through the next (which will enroll for the 2002-03 academic year). After 2002-03, the two-year maximum of nine reverts to eight, but the new plan would allow schools to earn a "bonus" scholarship if the attrition on their rosters exceeds the initial limit in a given year.

In effect, what the recommendation does is delay implementation of the five/eight rule until the 2003-04 season. So, schools that awarded five initial grants this year will have four to give next year (instead of three). Institutions that awarded fewer than five this year, however, still will have a maximum of five to give next year. Beginning in 2003, institutions can qualify for an additional (bonus) initial counter if graduation losses combined with the number of student-athletes who leave the institution (but were on track to graduate in a five-year period) exceed the initial limit in a given year.

For example, if a school loses three seniors to graduation in May 2003 and has three other players either turn pro or leave the school for other reasons but who were otherwise on track to graduate in a five-year period, that school would earn a bonus counter that could be used for the recruiting classes that enroll in 2003-04 or 2004-05, in addition to the eight already allowable initial counters for those two years.

The overall number of grants that can be in effect in a given year remains at 13.

Council members believe the plan offers some immediate relief to teams that have been affected by "unintended consequences" of the rule, yet maintains an incentive for teams to retain -- and graduate -- student-athletes.

"The five/eight rule was a well-intentioned rule with unintended consequences," said Charles Harris, chair of the Management Council and commissioner of the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference. "The Board has asked us to look at ways to provide universities with relief. We believe this modification does that."

The original five/eight rule implemented last year began as part of a reform package from the Division I Working Group to Study Basketball Issues. Initially, the measure placed an annual limit of four on the number of initial grants, but the Management Council amended that to the current rule that allows no more than five in any one year and no more than eight in two.

Once the legislation went into effect, however, coaches and other athletics administrators questioned whether it applied fairly to teams that for legitimate reasons incurred heavy attrition.

Proponents of the rule claimed it was implemented to address, among other things, the issue of coaches being able to "run off" student-athletes who were on scholarship but may not be living up to expectations on the court. Opponents, though, said instances where such run-off actually occurred were few and that the rule didn't adequately deal with transfers or players who turned pro but were in good academic standing at the time of their departure.

The Board of Directors was sensitive to that debate and in August instructed the Division I Basketball Issues men's subcommittee to review the matter in order for a solution to be reached before this fall's early signing period. That group, however, was deadlocked on whether to rescind or modify the rule, which led to the Council serving as the tiebreaker.

The alternative the Council approved was developed through discussion with members of the Collegiate Commissioners Association (CCA). Some conferences favored a similar alternative that provided a bonus grant based solely on attrition from graduation, but the Council favored the alternative that combined graduation losses with other attrition, as well.

The five/eight rule was not the only issue in which the CCA played a role. The commissioners also asked that the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Subcommittee change its reinstatement policy for basketball student-athletes who competed on an international professional team before initial enrollment at an NCAA institution.

The issue intensified recently with the subcommittee's increasing concern over the eligibility status of student-athletes who participated in athletics overseas before enrolling in Division I institutions. Letters were sent in fact to Division I schools this summer identifying more than 60 international student-athletes in men's basketball who may have eligibility issues.

The subcommittee's long-standing reinstatement condition states that student-athletes who participated in first-tier-level professional competition in a foreign country, but who were otherwise eligible for NCAA competition, would be withheld from one intercollegiate game for each professional game played. Recently, though, the subcommittee modified that condition to specify that the reinstatement penalty for student-athletes who have participated in second-tier international competition, and were otherwise eligible under NCAA rules, be reduced to one game for every two professional games played. For those who participated in competition below the first and second tiers and were otherwise eligible, the subcommittee recommended a penalty of 10 percent of the intercollegiate season (three games).

Some believe those conditions are too harsh, however, particularly for individuals who may not have known they were competing for a professional team.

Thus, the CCA asked the Management Council to change the reinstatement condition to one that would withhold a student-athlete from a maximum of 20 percent of the professional contests in which they participated, or eight games, whichever is less. The Council in a close vote agreed. The Board of Directors will consider this issue at its November 1 meeting.

"As it has shown in the past," Harris said, "the Board has the flexibility to accept, amend or remand any recommendation the Council forwards to it."

Division I-A membership

In other action, the Council gave initial approval to new criteria for Division I-A membership. The proposals, which would be reviewed by the Management Council for a second time in April and would be effective August 1, 2004, would require that a Division I-A member:

Provide an average of at least 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of football grants-in-aid per year over a rolling two-year period (the maximum annual allowance currently is 85; 90 percent would be 76.5).

Annually participate in a minimum of five regular-season home games against Division I-A opponents.

Sponsor a minimum of 16 varsity sports, with a minimum of six for men and eight for women.

Annually offer a minimum of 200 athletics grants-in-aid in all sports or spend at least $4 million on athletics grants-in-aid to student-athletes.

Annually demonstrate an average actual attendance of 15,000 for all home football games.

The proposals are from the Council's Membership Subcommittee, as well as from the newly created Football Study Oversight Committee, and are intended to maintain or improve the competitiveness of Division I-A football without altering the existing governance structure. The proposals also are meant to enhance Division I-AA membership.

Key among the proposals is the one that requires a commitment to 200 scholarships or $4 million in scholarship spending. The Football Study Oversight Committee preferred that the requirement include only the number of scholarships and not a dollar amount. The Council, however, saw the either/or as much-needed flexibility for the diverse Division I-A membership and to address the higher tuition costs at many institutions.

Basketball recruiting

The Council also gave final approval to a set of recommendations related to men's basketball recruiting that will be forwarded to the Board for adoption. The package represents one of the last pieces of the basketball reform puzzle that was begun two years ago by the Division I Working Group to Study Basketball Issues.

The proposals, developed by the Division I Basketball Issues Committee, would:

Strengthen the process for certifying summer basketball events, including a requirement for comprehensive educational and mentoring activities as well as disclosure of financial information about the sources of funds for the events and how they are allocated.

Alter the Division I men's basketball recruiting calendar to reflect a summer evaluation period of two 10-day periods separated by a four-day dead period (July 8 to 17 and July 22 to 31); to permit one telephone call to a prospect during March of the junior year; to permit one recruiting contact with a prospect during the April contact period of the junior year (to be included in the five permissible recruiting opportunities); to allow official visits beginning January 1 of the junior year; to establish 40 as the number of evaluation days during the academic year; and to eliminate evaluations during the fall contact period except for activities at the prospect's educational institution.

Prohibit university staff members who are attending certified summer events from having contact with a prospect's coach or other individuals associated with the prospect. The proposal also prohibits unofficial visits during July.

Require Division I schools to publicly disclose information about the financial relationships among institutions, corporations and coaches of prospects. Institutions that do not disclose the information will not be permitted to participate in the July evaluation period.

Allow the restricted coach in men's and women's basketball to participate in off-campus recruiting during the summer evaluation period and academic year, without increasing the number of coaches who can recruit off campus at any one time.

If the Board approves the package at its November 1 meeting, the proposals would become effective April 1, 2002.

Other highlights

Division I Management Council
October 22-23/Indianapolis

In response to the continuing travel complexities associated with the September 11 tragedies and the existing geographical-proximity provisions for championship pairings set forth in Bylaw 31.1.3.2.5, the Council approved a recommendation to implement for the fall 2001 championships limited seeding and greater emphasis on geographical competition, as specified:

(1) For championships that have been given approval to seed teams, the number of seeded teams shall not exceed a ratio of one to four. (This would not permit sports committees to seed more teams than they are currently approved to seed.) Once teams have been seeded, the remaining teams shall be placed in the bracket based on geographic considerations.

(2) Current selection criteria would not be impacted by these principles.

(3) Sports committees that currently have authority to avoid first-round match ups between institutions from the same conference would continue to have such authority. Those sports committees that currently have authority to avoid such match ups during the first two rounds of a championship now would be limited to avoiding such match ups only during the first round of the championship.

The Council noted that the decision regarding fall 2001 championships is a partial response to immediate concerns, and agreed that the Championships/Competition Cabinet and Management Council will continue to assess international developments and travel uncertainties and will be prepared to take the actions necessary to ensure consistency in the administration of all Division I championships.

Approved legislation that would eliminate the Memorial Resolutions Committee and the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse Committee, effective immediately, and assign the duties of those groups to other entities, as recommended by the respective committees. Also, the Council gave initial approval to a proposal that would merge the Committee on Financial Aid into the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet, and second approval to a proposal to establish a standing Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee.

Approved a recommendation to amend the Theodore Roosevelt Award nomination criteria to permit the nomination of former female student-athletes who participated in competitive intercollegiate athletics but did not receive a varsity athletics award.

Approved policies for the Committee on Infractions to use for the imposition of fines and forfeitures in secondary and major infractions cases and for the calculations for returning revenue earned when there was ineligible participation in an NCAA championship with revenue distribution

Gave initial approval to a proposal that would identify rugby as an emerging sport for women.

Proposals on certified events, amateurism top legislative actions

Because the Management Council's October 22-23 meeting in Indianapolis was one of two annual legislative meetings, the group considered and acted on more than 100 legislative proposals.

Many were approved a second time and forwarded to the Board for adoption, including one that would extend voting privileges to student-athletes on some Division I and Association-wide committees, and another that defines the senior woman administrator position at the conference level.

Other proposals that the Council sent to the Board for adoption included one that would prohibit NCAA certification of an event if it is conducted in a venue where sports wagering on intercollegiate athletics is permitted or on property sponsored by an establishment that permits sports wagering on college sports or is branded with signage for such an establishment.

The Council also sent to the Board a recommendation that would permit a Division I-A institution with a conference tie to a bowl to be bowl-eligible with a winning percentage of .500 during 12-game seasons, beginning next year. The NCAA Football Study Oversight Committee has opposed this proposal.

Also approved a final time were proposals that were part of the Bylaws 11 and 16 deregulation packages, and a proposal to expand the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet to 42 members.

Amateurism

As expected, the Council tabled until April 2002 consideration of a package of amateurism proposals related to pre-enrolled individuals. The Board of Directors had requested that alternative packages containing various existing proposals be structured for review. Three alternatives have been created and circulated to Division I conferences for review, all of which include the organized-competition rule.

Package A also includes proposals that would allow prospects to compete with professionals, sign a professional contract, enter a professional draft and be drafted. Package B is the same as A but adds a proposal that would allow prospects to accept prize money based on place finish. Package C is the same as B but adds a proposal that would allow prospects to receive compensation for athletics participation.

Among the legislative proposals the Council reviewed for the first time was one that would permit a basketball student-athlete to resume intercollegiate competition after declaring intent to return within 30 days of being drafted after entering a professional draft. That proposal had been opposed by both the men's and women's subcommittees of the Basketball Issues Committee, but was supported by the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet.

The Council also gave initial approval to proposals that would establish a transition period for new members to meet specified requirements to join Division I or for current NCAA members to reclassify to Division I. The proposal for new members would establish a seven-year provisional membership period that includes completion of specific requirements, such as satisfying sport sponsorship and financial aid requirements, participating in compliance seminars, and submitting and initiating a strategic plan that addresses Division I philosophy. The proposal for members to reclassify from Division II to Division I would establish a five-year process to become an active Division I member.

In addition, the Council initially approved a proposal that would amend the definition of a professional team to one that provides expenses above actual and necessary to any of its players. The Council also approved a proposal that specifies that an individual will not be eligible for intercollegiate competition if he or she ever competed on a professional team, regardless of knowledge that the team was professional.

Another proposal receiving initial approval would increase to five years the terms for members of the Division I Men's and Women's Basketball Committees.

For a complete list of legislative actions taken by the Council, see the chart on page 12.

-- Gary T. Brown