GARDEN GROVE, California -- The issue of whether to deregulate financial aid in a way that would benefit student-athlete well-being without compromising competitive equity remains unsettled in the Division I governance structure.

The Division I Management Council has asked for that discussion to last a few months longer in light of concerns that the proposals currently in the legislative pipeline may not be the answer people thought they were earlier this spring.

The proposals in question are Nos. 02-82 and 03-23-A, which would in effect allow student-athletes who receive only non-athletics aid to compete without counting in the institution's financial aid limits. The proposals were part of a deregulation package developed several years ago to address instances in which student-athletes were turning down non-athletics aid they had earned through their academic accomplishments just so they wouldn't hurt the team's financial aid limitations.

The Council actually approved the measures at its last meeting in April, but the Division I Board of Directors, the final authority in legislative matters, requested additional work before agreeing to adopt the concepts.

Among the Board's concerns was the notion that the legislation may favor institutions with more financial aid resources. Board representatives from Divisions I-AA and I-AAA schools in particular worried that the deregulation effort could lead to institutions with higher institutional-aid resources "stockpiling" student-athletes in basketball and football. They also believed the proposals as written might be manipulated with the creation of other possible sources of non-athletics aid (for example, "leadership awards" or other honors created for that purpose).

With that in mind, the presidents asked the Council to revisit the proposals and make recommendations for the Board's consideration at its August 4 meeting.

The Council at its July 18 meeting had at its disposal a number of options developed by staff and other groups, but members thought those alternatives had yet to be properly vetted in the membership, which fed the Council's desire to be given until the Board's October meeting to provide feedback.

Council members made the request knowing that the additional review wouldn't compromise an action timeline, either, since the effective date for the current proposals is August 1, 2005, too soon to practically affect this year's financial aid allocations. The request for additional study likely means the effective date of whatever is proposed would be moved to August 1, 2006.

The financial aid deregulation effort is of particular significance to the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, which has been emphatic in its support of the proposals since their development. SAAC Chair Ian Gray told the Council that his group prefers the proposals as written, though he said the SAAC probably would support one of the alternatives put forth specifying that the proposals would apply only to student-athletes who have completed one academic year at the certifying Division I institution.

SAAC members think the one-year period would diffuse the stockpiling concern without sacrificing the overriding desire to allow student-athletes to accept non-athletics aid -- at least over the majority of their intercollegiate careers.

Among other options being considered are:

• Adopting the two proposals as currently written;

• Recommending that the Board adopt Proposal No. 02-82 as written, and adopt Proposal No. 03-23-A, except for the provision exempting from equivalency computations academic honor awards based on the recipient's high-school record and awarded independently of athletics interests (Part B of the proposal);

• Modifying both proposals to require student-athletes to meet a specified academic profile before their non-athletics aid is exempt from team limits; or

• Recommending that option in addition to requiring that the proposals would apply only to student-athletes who have completed one academic year at the certifying Division I institution.

Council members noted that the additional time requested would provide an opportunity for other alternatives to be proposed between now and October.

Though the additional review extends a discussion that has lingered for the better part of two years, the Management Council felt it was prudent to use the time wisely to accommodate the Board's concerns. One Council member said, "Since the effective date is two weeks away, it would be impossible to practically implement the legislation this year anyway. An October deadline allows the membership to more fully review options already provided and others that might be developed."

Gray, who noted that his committee has contacted the Board since April about the SAAC's desire to implement at least a strong resemblance to the existing measures, said, "We have been debating this for a year and a half, and we continue to support the proposals as written, though we are open to other ideas as well. The SAAC has had a chance to communicate more with the presidents, and we think there is a greater understanding of the proposals now on the part of the Board."

Whether that is true may not manifest itself now until October, but Gray said it could be worth the wait. "As long as the core intent of the proposals is maintained in whatever is recommended, the additional three months of deliberation won't work against us," he said.

The January vote

The other significant action taken at the Management Council's summer meeting was to support a change in the way the group conducts its initial vote on legislative proposals in January.

Currently, the Council gives initial consideration of legislation at that meeting and distributes proposals that pass to the membership for a 60-day comment period. Then the Council votes on the measures again in April, sending those that are approved to the Board for adoption.

The process has created some redundancy in that the Council currently is required to vote on adopted proposals twice, even those that were approved by large margins the first time around. Also, the membership hasn't been able to discern whether the Council's initial approval indicates support for the merits of the proposal or whether the vote simply is a mechanism to trigger membership comment. Both the membership and the Council alike have decided the January vote needs to be more of a leadership tool than a delay tactic.

To that end, the Council approved the following recommendations from its governance subcommittee:

• Council members will conduct an initial vote on the merits of a proposal at their January meeting. A two-thirds margin sends the measure straight to the Board for adoption.

• Proposals that receive less than the two-thirds margin but more than a 50 percent vote automatically go out for membership comment, with final action in April.

• Proposals garnering less than the 50 percent approval in the merit vote are subject to a second tally, this time not on the merits but on whether the measure should be distributed for comment.

• A 50 percent margin on the second vote sends the proposal out for comment (with final action in April); a less than 50 percent vote means the proposal is defeated.

Council members think the new process streamlines the number of proposals that go out for comment and provides some guidance on those that do. Governance subcommittee members also noted that the Collegiate Commissioners Association had supported the revised system in talks earlier this summer.

"This saves us from considering so many of the same proposals twice, and it clarifies what the single vote means," said University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Faculty Athletics Representative Jack Evans, who chairs the Council's governance subcommittee.

Fellow FAR Scott Kretchmar of Pennsylvania State University also supported the move, saying, "Most Council members are ready to vote on the merits in January anyway, so it shouldn't require a behavior change for most conferences."

Because the modification would require a legislative change, the Council asked staff to draft a proposal for the group's October meeting. Approval there would mean the new process could be in place for the Council's January 2006 meeting.

"Even though the process won't be adopted until October, it's important to indicate to the membership that we fully intend to do this, and that conferences need to do enough homework on proposals this fall to take a position in January," Evans said.

In other action, though the July meeting was not a legislative session, the Management Council approved several proposals as either emergency or noncontroversial legislation. Among them was a proposal from the Committee on Academic Performance to exempt from contemporaneous penalties the aid awarded to student-athletes who are medical noncounters. The exemption is consistent with the current legislation for student-athletes who have exhausted their eligibility (see page 12 for a summary of proposals adopted as emergency or noncontroversial legislation).

Other highlights

Division I Management Council
July 18/Garden Grove, California

• Approved a change in policy to permit a Walter Byers Scholarship finalist who previously received an NCAA postgraduate scholarship also to receive the Byers scholarship in the event the original Byers awardee is unable or unwilling to use the award. (The change also must be approved in Divisions II and III.)

• Agreed to introduce Proposal No. 05-37 (enabling legislation -- Amateurism Clearinghouse), requiring NCAA certification of the amateur status of any prospective student-athlete (including two- and four-year transfers) initially enrolling at an NCAA Division I institution, into the 2005-06 legislative cycle.

• Approved the appointment of Ron Holmes, women's bowling coach at Central Missouri State University, as secretary-rules editor for the sport.

• Confirmed a membership subcommittee decision that athletics aid awarded during the summer may not be used in calculating compliance with the minimal financial aid requirements for Division I-A membership. Also confirmed that an institution may not combine actual and paid attendance figures within the same football season to satisfy the home-attendance requirements for Division I-A membership.

• Affirmed current policies in use by the Championships/Competition Cabinet whereby sports committees must award at least 50 percent of a team championship field to conferences that meet the automatic-qualification criteria. That action supported a Division
  I-AA Football Governance Committee recommendation to deny the Northeast Conference's appeal to seek relief from those policies for the 2006 Division I-AA Football Championship.

• Heard a report from the NCAA Sports Wagering Task Force, a group formed last year after survey data indicated a disturbing increase in the number of student-athletes who participate in sports wagering. In addition to providing an update on the various initiatives underway to combat the problem, the task force asked NCAA staff to review Bylaw 10.3 to determine if legislative changes should be made.

• Approved a 2.2 percent inflationary adjustment to the minimum financial aid requirement for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic years.

• Approved a membership subcommittee recommendation to sponsor legislation requiring multidivision members to engage in a compliance review once every four years.

• The Council's membership subcommittee met with Division II representatives, including Grand Valley State University President Mark Murray and Northeast-10 Conference Commissioner Dave Brunk, to discuss division affiliation issues. Division II administrators have been concerned about what they believe is a steady migration of Division II schools seeking to reclassify to Division I. The membership subcommittee agreed to review the matter further, including consideration of a recommendation from President Murray to require institutions seeking to reclassify to submit a multiyear financial plan that would verify that institution's ability to sustain membership in Division I.

Noncontroversial/emergency legislation

The Management Council approved the following proposals as emergency or noncontroversial legislation:

• No. 03-122, to permit the AEC Cabinet to grant a fourth season of competition to a partial qualifier or nonqualifier based on objective evidence of circumstances that warrants a waiver of the normal application of the regulation. (The Council amended the proposal to indicate that the authority to grant a waiver should be based on objective evidence of "extraordinary" circumstances. The Council also noted that the AEC Cabinet should be judicious in its review of the season-of-competition waivers to retain the original intent of the legislation. Once established, the policies and procedures for the review of such waiver requests should be provided to the Council.)

• No. 05-23, to permit the use of either completed or scheduled contests, whichever is more beneficial to the student-athlete, when administering hardship and season-of-competition waivers. (The Council changed the effective date to apply retroactively for student-athletes with remaining eligibility and revised the proposal to specify that the use of the method of calculation must be consistent in both the numerator and the denominator.)

• No. 05-35, to exempt from contemporaneous penalties the aid awarded to student-athletes who are medical noncounters.

• No. 05-36, to specify that unethical conduct shall include the knowing involvement in providing a student-athlete a banned substance, impermissible supplement or medications contrary to medical licensure, commonly accepted standards of care in sports medicine practice, or state or federal law.

• No. 05-38, to eliminate the requirement that the faculty athletics representative from an institution hosting an NCAA championship serve as a temporary member of the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement and be responsible for representing the AEC Cabinet during the time of the championship.

• No. 05-39, to specify that the term of office for a member of the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement begins on the first day of July after the member's appointment.

• No. 05-40, to permit the AEC Cabinet to review requests to waive the full-time enrollment requirement for competition and practice, excluding those waivers specifically designated to another entity (for example, conference office, Management Council).

• No. 05-89, to establish a quiet period in women's basketball during the Friday, Saturday and Sunday immediately before the initial date for the spring signing of the National Letter of Intent. (The Council noted that the Women's Basketball Coaches Association had intended this change to be included in last year's legislative package.)

The Council also approved a modification of wording (Proposal No. M-05-4) regarding Proposal No. 04-31 to clarify that the permissible one-hour walk-through per day during the five-day acclimatization period may not be conducted during the three-hour recovery period. It also specifies that a three-hour recovery period must be provided between each session (that is, testing, practice or walk-through).

Proposals submitted as noncontroversial legislation but that the Council believes should be included in the 2005-06 legislative cycle:

• Proposal No. 05-41, which would eliminate the requirement that the athletics director and head coach in the sport in which the student-athlete participates sign each student-athlete statement as required by the prescribed form. (The Council's legislative review subcommittee discussed issues related to coaches and administrators signing the various forms and recommended that the AEC Cabinet and the CCACA provide feedback for a possible amendment to the proposal.)

• Proposal No. 05-42, which would establish quiet periods in women's volleyball from January 1 to the Friday before Martin Luther King Day and from May 1 to the Friday before Memorial Day. (The Council recommended that the proposal's effective date be revised to August 1, 2006, to avoid a possible midyear change in the calendar if the proposal is adopted in April 2006.)