Proposals to reshape basketball recruiting got their first reshaping from the Division I governance structure as the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet proposed several amendments during its September 15-17 meeting in Indianapolis.

The cabinet reviewed comprehensive packages from the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) and the Women's Basketball Coaches Association (WBCA), which were the result of an invitation earlier this year from NCAA President Myles Brand for coaches to design a recruiting culture they felt was best for the game.

While cabinet members supported a majority of the measures, including recruiting calendar modifications that allow coaches greater latitude in assessing a prospect's fit at the institution, they did not support tryouts in men's basketball and a reduction in the number of official visits from five to four for both genders. The latter also had been recommended for all sports by the NCAA Recruiting Task Force.

Another proposal -- one that had garnered a good deal of media attention but was not central to the men's package -- was removed from the picture when the NABC informed the cabinet that it was withdrawing a measure that would permit men's basketball student-athletes five seasons of competition.

NABC Executive Director Jim Haney said the NABC's Special Committee on Recruiting and Access will continue to examine the concept of a fifth season of competition during the upcoming year, because it offers a viable means of increasing graduation rates in men's basketball. Haney added, though, that the proposal was not the "cornerstone" of the broader plan, which seeks to improve graduation rates of Division I men's basketball student-athletes, maintain satisfactory progress toward a degree under the new standards recently adopted by the NCAA, and improve retention of enrolled student-athletes at institutions. For that reason, he said, the proposal's withdrawal should not be viewed as weakening the plan.

The AEC Cabinet also opposed a similar proposal for football, citing the need for more research, as well as the potential legal ramifications of eliminating a waiver option.

Men's basketball proposals

Of the 11 proposals in the men's basketball package, the AEC Cabinet opposed only one as written and suggested amendments to just three others. The lone measure not to gain cabinet support at all was Proposal No. 04-111, which would provide additional benefits to student-athletes, such as occasional snacks or meals during coach/player mentoring activities, complimentary admissions and parking for immediate family members, and gifts for special circumstances (for example, a student-athlete's birthday). Cabinet members believed those types of benefits were not integral to the proposal's rationale of strengthening the relationship between the coach and student-athlete.

The cabinet supported an amended version of Proposal No. 04-110, which as written was intended to provide greater access between institutions and prospects before initial full-time enrollment. Cabinet members supported parts of the proposal but suggested amendments that would (1) preclude a prospect from participating in a certified foreign tour before initial full-time enrollment; (2) remove the provision that permits on- or off-campus contact by representatives of an institution's athletics interests; and (3) remove the provision that allows an institution to provide three complimentary admissions to a prospect to attend a road game.

Cabinet members believe the base proposal may focus prospects' attention on basketball more than the academic mission. They also believe that while providing tickets to a road game is a nice gesture, it does not help assimilate the prospect into an institution's team or help develop a relationship with coaching staff members.

The cabinet also recommended amendments to Proposal Nos. 04-112 and 04-119. Members would rather that Proposal No. 04-112, which specifies that participation in a preseason exhibition game or scrimmage would not result in the loss of a season of competition, be limited to the student-athlete's first season of competition. Members also suggested this amendment for a similar proposal in women's basketball.

Proposal No. 04-119, which includes a number of the recruiting calendar modifications, was amended to remove the provision for on-campus tryouts and the reduction in the number of official visits. The latter had been one of eight proposals recommended by the Recruiting Task Force, six of which were adopted as emergency legislation by the Board of Directors in August. The other two -- the reduction in official visits and a proposal to allow institutions to pay coach airfare for a prospect's parent or guardian for an official visit -- were not deemed as emergency measures by the task force and were submitted into the legislative cycle for membership review.

AEC Cabinet members voted not to support either one. Most were not swayed by the argument that many prospects do not use the fifth visit or use it only as an entertainment option. Instead, a majority of cabinet members believe the fifth visit represents the window of opportunity for mid-major institutions and nonscholarship programs to recruit top prospects.

Cabinet members also did not favor paying airfare for a prospect's parent. While many conceded the potential value of parental involvement during an official visit, others cited cost concerns, as well as a desire for prospects to get what cabinet members called "an accurate sense of his or her everyday experience as a student-athlete." Most cabinet members felt that the interaction among prospects, coaches and student-athletes would be inhibited by the presence of a parent.

Women's basketball proposals

Among measures in the women's package that did not gain cabinet support was Proposal No. 04-135, which would restrict electronic communication with prospects to fax and e-mail. The WBCA Special Committee on Recruiting and Access believes strongly that instant messaging and text messaging are intrusive, both for prospects and for coaches, but the AEC Cabinet disagreed with that rationale.

The cabinet also opposed Proposal No. 04-136, which would prohibit a coach from contacting a prospect's parents or legal guardians if they also serve on the staff of their daughter's nonscholastic team. Cabinet members did not agree that prospects' parents are coaching such teams to gain greater interaction with college coaches.

In addition, the cabinet did not support Proposal No. 04-142, which would prohibit women's basketball scholastic and nonscholastic events from being held on a Division I campus (except for high-school state tournaments). The WBCA committee thinks this eliminates a potential recruiting advantage for larger schools, but cabinet members felt the proposal creates an unintended consequence for those institutions that have affiliated high schools that use the institution's facilities.

Cabinet members also struggled with the principles imbedded in Proposal No. 04-144, which increases the access to and benefits for signed prospects. Members of the cabinet's recruiting subcommittee also had concerns with this concept in the men's basketball package (implicit in Proposal No. 04-110). Central to the debate is at what point a prospect should be considered a student-athlete. The coaches associations want the definition to apply once the prospect signs, but many cabinet members worry that increasing benefits and access before the prospect enrolls presents a potential for athletics to be emphasized over academics.

Some cabinet members also are reluctant to believe that all coaches will adhere to the intent of the access proposals. The NABC's Haney, however, has said that "while it may not be likely that 100 percent of coaches would implement this well, to deny the majority the chance to create a structure that will work is an even bigger concern."

Nonetheless, the cabinet did not support Proposal No. 04-144, and members advised that the concept of defining when a prospect should be treated like a student-athlete be clarified equitably for men and women, and that the focus remain on a prospect's academic assimilation before his or her athletics assimilation.

Proposals the cabinet did support in women's basketball included recruiting calendar modifications that provide for 85 recruiting days from September 16 through April 30, and that prohibit communication with the prospect or a prospect's relatives or legal guardians during evaluation periods in July.

Cabinet members also favored an increase from two to three in the number of coaches who can recruit off campus, and another proposal that provides unlimited contact with prospects who have signed a National Letter of Intent.

Under terms specified in the legislative cycle, the NABC and WBCA will be informed of the cabinet's recommended amendments. Either sponsor could agree with the amendments and move the proposals forward as such, or they could demand that the base proposals and the amended version be moved separately through the structure.

Other legislative action

In addition to the basketball packages, cabinet members reviewed other legislative proposals in the 2004-05 cycle.

Among the more significant actions the cabinet took was to suggest revisions to Proposal No. 03-24, which specifies that athletically related financial aid awards must be provided for a period of one academic year, except in cases of midyear enrollment, midyear graduation and a limited one-time exception.

The cabinet recommended that the Management Council adopt an amended version of the proposal as emergency legislation. The amendment adds two exceptions to the proposed prohibition on term-by-term financial aid awards.

The first exception permits an institution to award the balance of an athletics scholarship initially awarded to a student-athlete who graduates midyear and leaves the institution to another student-athlete(s) for less than a full academic year, provided the recipient of the remaining aid has not previously received athletics aid from the certifying institution.

The second exception specifies that one time during a student-athlete's enrollment at the institution, the institution may award that student-athlete athletics aid for less than a full academic year provided the recipient has not previously received such aid from the certifying institution.

As revised, cabinet members believe Proposal No. 03-24 addresses specific concerns raised by the membership through the governance structure and comment process.

Other highlights

Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet
September 15-17/Indianapolis

• Asked the Division I Management Council to adopt emergency legislation to eliminate the quiet period after the Division I Softball Championship. The championship was recently extended by one week, which delays the start of the quiet period. The new quiet period occurs during dates that typically include events in which prospects participate. Eliminating the quiet period allows coaches to continue to attend those events.

• Noted that the agents and amateurism subcommittee intends to ask the cabinet in February to sponsor legislation that would prohibit an institution, conference or the NCAA from using the name or likeness of an individual student-athlete for retail sales.

• Noted that the agents and amateurism subcommittee intends to ask the cabinet in February to sponsor legislation that would provide a one-time exception for men's ice hockey student-athletes to enter the NHL draft and be drafted and still maintain their intercollegiate eligibility.

• Did not support Proposal No. 04-42, which specifies that an institution with a graduation success rate of 60 percent or higher (under the new calculations, not the federally mandated rate) shall receive in the next academic year twice its allotment of academic-support funds it is entitled to under the revenue-distribution process. The cabinet's subcommittee on financial aid, while supportive of the concept of rewarding academic performance, believes the 60 percent rate may be too low. The proposal also does not specify the source of the suggested additional funds.

• Recommended that the Management Council adopt noncontroversial legislation specifying that a team may be considered professional if it provides any of its players with "other reasonable expenses" (as opposed to "other reasonable expenses incidental to participation").

• Reviewed subcommittee recommendations regarding the coaches certification test and agreed that there is no need to change the administration (for example, annual online exam, open-book format, 80-minute time limit) or topics covered on the exam (for example, bylaws and inclusion of new legislation). However, cabinet members did agree to indicate questions addressing newly adopted legislation and to devote a set percentage of questions on the test to progress-toward-degree requirements. Further, the cabinet asked the staff to review test questions to ensure they are straightforward and readable. It also directed staff to permit coaches to access missed questions and correct answers immediately after the test has been scored; however, the distribution of hard copies of completed tests is still precluded.