It has been almost three years since Division II charged forward with the most ambitious amateurism reform package in NCAA history.

At the time of the 2001 NCAA Convention, the prospective change had been debated, modified, re-debated and amended to the point that almost all stakeholders felt confident that they were taking a reasonable risk by radically revamping Bylaw 12. The legislation, 2001 Proposal No. 12, passed with 88 percent of the vote on January 8, 2001, and became effective eight months later.

The new philosophy had two principal goals. The first was to equalize the competitive atmosphere by making certain that traditional student-athletes would be playing against individuals with similar athletics experience. The second was to accommodate the "failed professional" -- those individuals who signed professional contracts only to discover quickly that they were not meant for professional athletics. Previous legislation had rendered such athletes permanently ineligible for NCAA competition.

While most of the division was solidly behind Proposal No. 12, those who opposed it envisioned severe unintended effects, especially whether it was a first step toward a "pay-for-play" mind-set for high-school and college sports. In fact, the National Federation of State High School Associations spoke against the proposal during a Division II issues forum the day before the business session. Worst-case what-if scenarios focused on what would happen to competitive equity if an athlete such as Kobe Bryant decided to abandon his pro basketball career after a year.

Of course, it was always unlikely in the extreme that a player like Kobe Bryant would collect millions for a year at the NBA level and then suddenly quit to take advantage of Division II's permissive amateurism regulations. If anything, the concern now is that not enough failed professional athletes are using the opportunities that Division II provides. In any case, the changes to Division II amateurism policies certainly have not upset competitive equity nor have they led to a pay-for-play environment at any level that was amateur before the action was taken.

While it is clear that the 2001 change has had few, if any, negative effects, the positive effects are less apparent, especially considering the radical nature of the legislation. Those who were instrumental in the change still believe in the legislation but have concerns about how effectively some schools are applying it.

"I think the division overall is accepting it well," said Clint Bryant, director of athletics at Augusta State Univer sity and chair of the Division II Management Council when the reform was conceived and developed. "There are probably still some kinks left as we try to make sure that everybody is certifying athletes the same way, but overall, from a conceptual standpoint, it hasn't been that difficult a task."

Tony Capon, faculty athletics representative at the University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown, and one of those most involved in the 2001 approval process, said the new legislation appears to have been especially effective in redefining Division II's unwanted role as a home for highly experienced international student-athletes.

"That seems to be the impression, at least anecdotally, that there aren't as many of the 26-, 27- or 28-year-olds, particularly international athletes, who are coming to our institutions having played for several seasons on a club team in another country," said Capon, current chair of the Management Council.

With the new legislation, Lynn Dorn, senior woman administrator at North Dakota State University, said that concern has been reduced.

"In informal conversations, you used to hear, 'Gosh, can you believe that team is composed entirely of foreign athletes?' " Dorn said. "That sort of conversation has gone by the wayside after two years."

Such conversations may be by the wayside, but they haven't completely left the roadway. Administrators are still concerned about whether some of their competition is still in the fast lane when it comes to certifying international student-athletes.

"Don't get me wrong," Bryant said. "I'm pleased with it. But certain institutions may not be thoroughly investigating the international field, and I don't know how you get around that. I think you've just got to continue to educate your membership on doing what's right and that it's the membership's responsibility to properly certify who they bring in. And maybe it will take an example of someone turning someone in to make it work."

Phil Roach, athletics director at Rollins College, said his coaches believe the new rule has resulted in fewer older, more mature players throughout the division. "But they also see that these athletes are found in their NAIA competition," Roach said. "You'll probably play 10 to 15 percent of your schedule with NAIA teams that are in proximity," he said, "and the coaches are finding those schools are stronger."

Capon sees no cause for alarm but, like Bryant, he is not certain the membership is totally on board.

"We haven't heard of a lot of violations," he said, "but of course the question becomes whether people are actually following the legislation or whether there are institutions out there that don't understand the full ramifications."

Division II Vice-President Mike Racy said that although some schools may be abusing the rule, part of the problem may relate to perception.

"When this new legislation was conceived," he said, "the Division II Amateurism Project Team knew that it would set a new standard and that from the moment the legislation became effective (August 1, 2001), any new student-athletes would have to meet the new profile. But we already had a large number of student-athletes who had been admitted through the previous system and it was going to take five or six years before they cleared out."

In short, although the term was never used, the effect of Proposal No. 12 was amnesty for student-athletes with extensive club or professional experience who were already in the system. Many of those who enrolled previous to 2001 are likely still in school and, given their age and experience, they may be competitively dominant.

However, Racy he said believes the dominance of over-aged and over-experienced athletes should wane over time as the legislation takes effect.

"What is especially good about this legislation is that it is so easy to apply," he said. "Each institution must note on its squad list when each student-athlete graduated from high school and when he or she first enrolled in college. The Compliance Assistant Software asks the same question. If there is no gap, the student-athlete is assumed to have no issues relating to 2001 Proposal No. 12. If there is a gap in time, the institution must determine whether that time was spent in organized competition. The eventual result should be that Division II student-athletes will be competing in an environment in which similar experience is the norm."

Still, one athletics director said that while Division II eventually may reach such a point, it isn't necessarily there now.

"My soccer coach pointed out the rule to a school that has three of those 'freshmen' on its roster," the athletics director said. "He said he just can't see how somebody of that age and talent who is classified as a freshman can't have used up a season of competition."

To that, Racy said that members owe it to themselves and the membership in general to report such suspicions to conference offices or to the NCAA.

While he is confident that the Division II climate will change for the good over time, Racy said that should not be interpreted to mean that domestic student-athletes will necessarily dominate future competition.

"I don't believe anybody should go to a championship and base conclusions about this legislation on whether they see international student-athletes on the field or on the court," Racy said. "This legislation was not meant to penalize international student-athletes."

In fact, a number of schools have institutional missions based on the inclusion of international students, and in those cases, the student-athlete population mirrors that of the overall student body. That is the case at Barry University, an international institution whose commitment to international student-athletes has remained strong since the approval of Proposal No. 12. About 16 percent of Barry's student-athletes (and of the overall student body) are international students.

"What we found was that we needed to research their backgrounds more thoroughly and we now have additional paperwork that we're requiring of them in the process," said Kathy Turpin, Barry associate director of athletics.

Turpin said she developed a form, since adopted by the entire Sunshine State Conference, that enables institutions to get early feedback on what club or professional experience prospects may have.

"We require in house that our coaches complete the form early in the process for all student-athletes, but certainly for any of those who may be international or may have delayed first-time enrollment," Turpin said. "That gave us right away a heads-up for anything that uses seasons of competition."

With that device added to the tools that the NCAA provides (especially Internet resources to check the experience of international student-athletes), Turpin is highly confident that Barry complies with what she considers to be a good rule.

"We think it is good," she said. "I think for every institution there may be some part of that rule that has affected their recruiting, but the end result is that it's balancing the competitive field across the board."

Julie Roe, NCAA director of student-athlete reinstatement, said that the Division II Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee is in the process of producing a compact disk that will further educate the membership on how to apply the rule.

"This will be a user-friendly presentation that should serve primarily as an interactive tool for coaches," she said. "In particular, it should show how to apply case studies."

At least one copy of the disk will be provided to every Division II campus by spring 2004.

The membership also could benefit from follow-up research. The Amateurism Project Team suggested such a project as it was developing the legislation since it could help to know how often and under what circumstances the legislation has been triggered.

Augusta State's Bryant knows that such a study would show change at his institution.

"We recruit a number of international students at our school, and what I've come to find since we approved the rule is that we are recruiting more traditional-aged high-school kids as opposed to older, more mature athletes," he said. "That's what we were trying to get after when we developed the legislation."

In that regard, Capon said no fine-tuning is necessary.

"We've already deregulated everything we can deregulate," he said. "We're not going anywhere near agents -- that still remains an absolute no-no -- but beyond that, we've essentially deregulated everything pertaining to pre-enrollment.

"And there doesn't seem to be any interest in Division II deregulating post-enrollment. We still want to make a distinction between what happened before enrollment, which might be primarily athletically motivated, and what happens after you're enrolled, which is about being a student."