NCAA News Archive - 2001

« back to 2001 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index

Subcommittee is 50/50 on 'five/eight' debate


Sep 24, 2001 11:43:37 AM


The NCAA News

Discussion about the merits of the so-called "five/eight rule" for granting scholarships in men's basketball apparently is as divided inside the governance structure as it is outside.

Charged with reviewing the issue during a September 17 telephone conference, the men's subcommittee of the Division I Basketball Issues Committee reached an impasse on the current legislation that limits the number of initial grants in men's basketball to eight over two years and no more than five in any one year.

The Division I Board of Directors passed the legislation in April 2000 to help address issues surrounding low graduation rates in men's basketball and attrition rates among male basketball student-athletes. Some basketball coaches and others have criticized the bylaw, saying that it unfairly penalizes some institutions that lose players as a result of attrition, graduation or other circumstances beyond the school's control.

And reflective of the difference of opinion in the membership, subcommittee members also found themselves deadlocked after a lengthy discussion on whether to rescind the rule or modify it.

The subcommittee did agree, though, that if the rule is modified, it should not apply to those student-athletes who leave a school in good academic standing. Good academic standing, the subcommittee voted, would be defined as being on schedule at the time of withdrawal to graduate in five years. In other words, if a men's basketball student-athlete left after his first year, he would have had to complete 20 percent of the requirements for graduation, or 40 percent after two years.

"This is a contentious issue, and the subcommittee was evenly divided on whether to keep the bylaw or rescind it," said Kenneth "Buzz" Shaw, subcommittee chair and chancellor of Syracuse University. "The coaches and some others on the subcommittee clearly believe that the limits should be removed. Others see the need to keep the limits in place. There was consensus, however, that the current rule should take into consideration student-athletes who decide to leave and are on target to reach their academic goals."

What this means is that the subcommittee will not be forwarding any recommendation one way or the other to the Management Council, which is expected to discuss the issue further in October. The Council may be prepared at that time to consider proposals that would modify the existing legislation, but it may choose to delay such deliberation. However, the Board of Directors indicated in August that it wanted to reach closure on the issue at its November meeting.

Related to the issue, the subcommittee asked the staff to develop research that would quantify how many men's basketball student-athletes transfer or leave an institution before graduation and determine the primary reasons for such departures.

Recruiting legislation

In other action, the subcommittee reviewed its package of proposals (Nos. 01-51 through 01-55) regarding the recruiting structure in Division I and discussed membership reactions to the proposals. The only change it recommended was to divide the proposed 20 days of evaluation in July (No. 01-51) into two 10-day segments with a four-day break.

Responding to alternative proposals currently before the membership, the subcommittee voted to oppose:

No. 01-52-1, which would delay the first opportunity for an institution to provide an official visit to the second semester or third quarter of a prospect's junior year in high school rather than the first semester or quarter as proposed by the subcommittee.

No. 01-72, which would permit an on-campus contact with a basketball prospect in conjunction with an athletics event held on the institution's campus outside a contact period.

No. 01-74, which would permit institutional staff members employed at two-year or four-year institutions who do not have basketball coaching responsibilities to participate in certified summer leagues.

No. 01-87, which would permit a student-athlete to be drafted by a professional league without jeopardizing his or her eligibility, provided the student-athlete declares an intent to resume intercollegiate basketball competition within 30 days after the draft.

Also discussed was a model that would establish the men's and women's subcommittees as separate standing committees and reduce the size of each group from 18 to 12 members. The subcommittee reached no decision on the model and will continue to discuss the issue.


© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy