National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Division III's legislative concern - Too many rules
Members complain of 'overregulation'
Members complain of 'overregulation'
|
By Jack Copeland
The NCAA News
The NCAA News
Most Division III debates on recent big issues — ranging from the length of playing and practice seasons to the appropriateness of “redshirting” — have focused on whether proposed restrictions fit the division’s philosophy, serve the best interests of student-athletes and respect institutional autonomy.
But recent disagreements on issues that are smaller in scope but vitally important to one or more Division III constituencies — ranging from whether limits should be placed on the use of male practice players in women’s basketball to a recent question of whether athletics employees should be permitted to work at private camps where prospective student-athletes also work — frequently are focusing on another concern.
More and more often, athletics administrators and coaches are responding that some recent actions constitute “overregulation” in Division III. And occasionally, such concerns are being voiced about bigger issues, too.
“You hear it,” agreed Kevin McHugh, executive director of student development and campus programs at The College of New Jersey and vice chair of the Division III Management Council. “You tend to hear it on the heels of the Convention; it’s a function of timing as much as anything else.”
But explicit use of the word “overregulation” actually made a debut of sorts during the most recent Convention.
Debates in recent years rarely if ever have hinged — specifically, at least — on the complaint that Division III is adopting too many new rules. A review of transcripts from recent years’ Convention business sessions reveals no use of the word (or of another recently coined phrase, “overlegislating”) — until this year.
In Orlando, one delegate complained of overregulation in opposing a proposal — ultimately adopted — that prohibits a range of university personnel from wagering on sports. Similar complaints, if not the specific word, were raised during debates over other issues.
The growing frequency of objections to too many rules may primarily be a function of increased channels for expressing such concerns. For example, a recent Division III “virtual focus group” discussion solicited reactions on whether to study possible limitations on recruiting activities. While a number of respondents favored exploring the idea, others urged that the discussion be abandoned.
Reasons for opposition ranged from concerns tied to effect on enrollment or preserving competitive equity to this simply stated objection from an athletics director: “One of the beauties of Division III athletics is the freedom from all of the bureaucracy of Divisions I and II.”
Some observers point out there always has been — and probably always will be — at least a segment of the Division III membership that objects to one restriction or another.
“I hear we’re overregulating on various issues or topics,” said Chris Martin, Division III Membership Committee chair and commissioner of the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin. “I don’t think it’s changed any over the past couple of years — it’s neither increased nor decreased.”
However, another observer thinks the level of concern — if not the level of complaining — is growing.
“I sense (the membership is) concerned about it a lot more,” said Tim Gleason, commissioner of the Ohio Athletic Conference and a member of the Division III Management Council who once served on the Division III Interpretations and Legislation Committee.
“We have a great many young part-time or volunteer coaches who start their careers in the Division III ranks, and the more complex our rules are, the more vulnerability we have of breaking them, and the greater our educational burden becomes,” he said. “That’s the concern I’m hearing, that people are just more afraid now of breaking rules because they’re more complex.”
Drilling down
It’s a given that Division III institutions support the division’s philosophy statement — an assumption that is supported by the overwhelming approval that typically has been recorded for recent amendments to that document.
But drill down into the bylaws of the Division III Manual that seek to put those philosophies into practice, and things get stickier.
Ask Division III conference or institutional administrators what aspects of intercollegiate athletics should be regulated, and most readily agree on financial aid restrictions. But even as they continue by listing recruiting, playing and practice seasons, and eligibility, they’ll usually quickly qualify those suggestions by noting that not everybody agrees how broadly Division III should govern in those areas.
“It’s more a practical problem than a philosophical problem,” Gleason said. “When we make legislation, it’s easy to get caught up in leveling the playing field among institutions, (rather than acting) philosophically to the benefit of the student-athlete. The temptation to want to regulate each other is strong, and as a result, the tendency is for legislation to go down that path rather than down a philosophical path.”
Gleason suggested that budget management may be just as much of a motivating factor for pursuing restrictions as maintaining competitive equity. John Harper, director of athletics at Bridgewater State College and a former member of the Division III Management Council, agreed, saying most of the complaints he hears about overregulation are “budget-driven.”
“That’s where some of the frustration comes from,” Harper said. “I don’t even know that it necessarily has to do with whether the rules are good, bad or indifferent — it’s just the frustration of, here’s another regulation that we have to enforce, and how am I going to afford to do it?”
Harper says concern about competitive equity isn’t so much a factor in his area (Bridgewater State competes in the Massachusetts State College Athletic Conference), but other administrators think it is the major motivation for seeking restrictions.
“Many of these pieces of legislation we’ve had over the past couple of years deal with competitive equity — the opportunity to compete on the proverbial level playing field,” said Martin, who as a former NCAA membership services staff member served as Division III legislative liaison. “Now, many people don’t bring that up, and I’m not saying it’s the sole reason, but when you get down to it, when people are opposed to legislation, it’s a matter of competitive equity.”
Sometimes, a segment of the membership objects to restrictions because they are seen as interfering with institutional initiatives, such as using sports to attract more students to a campus. In such cases, restrictions may be perceived as contradictory to a Division III philosophy that advocates institutional autonomy.
“What is overregulation? I don’t know,” Harper said. “For some folks, any regulation is going to be overregulation. One of the beauties of Division III is institutional control — but therein lies room for problems, as well.”
‘Splitting hairs’
Some frustration also almost certainly arises from the complexity of otherwise widely supported restrictions.
Gleason points to two current restrictions — calling them “areas where we split hairs too finely” — that he believes can be simplified without harming the legislation’s intent.
“One, (preseason) football practice, is a new example. It is much more complicated than it needs to be,” he said. “It seems to me if we all start practice on the 13th Sunday before selection Sunday, then simply add your five weeks of nontraditional, you get your 18 total weeks. What you gain in simplicity from the deregulation effort far outweighs whatever is gained by the complexity of the count-back system.
“Every year, I need to go over this with each of my schools, as to when each one can start. They’re all paranoid about, can I start this day or that day? Do I count two or one practices? Here’s my start date for classes — does the date immediately preceding the sixth day of the week have to be a two- or a one-practice day? This is crazy stuff.”
He also targets old bylaws governing official and unofficial visits — and specifically, varying restrictions on who may receive complimentary game admissions during a visit — for reconsideration. (Gleason believes all such situations should be handled the same way through one “recruiting visits” section in the Manual.)
Gleason said complicated rules almost always arise from “noble” intentions, and sometimes serve a purpose that justifies the complexity.
“The financial aid path we’ve taken (requiring institutions to demonstrate by reporting data that student-athletes receive comparable aid to other students on campus) is a long time coming, and well worth it. We’ve added complexity, but it was done for a great cause…. The football example is one where we’ve added complexity, and the price isn’t worth paying.”
The diversity factor
While the restrictions Gleason cited and others like them may be aggravating for administrators and coaches, they generally don’t symbolize fundamental splits in the Division III membership over whether playing and practice seasons should be limited, or whether recruiting is inappropriate.
Martin, however, thinks that Division III’s size and diversity also is a key to understanding why segments of the membership may complain about overregulation — even as those factors also help explain splits over recently contentious major issues like elimination of redshirting and restrictions on the nontraditional season.
“It’s putting what we have on paper and what we adhere to as a division more to a test when we talk about some of those issues that may divide the membership, or even segment the membership into smaller pieces — not into A and B, but one, two, three and four,” he said. “It becomes a test of the philosophy, and what we adhere to, whether it be financial aid, playing and practice seasons, redshirting, eligibility — you can just continue right down the list.
“When push comes to shove on these questions, you’re going to get different opinions because the membership is so diverse. There are so many schools that are so different from everybody else that it’s hard for all to come together on common ground. It’s a second argument: Rather than just saying we disagree, because we’re creating legislation, we’re saying it’s overregulating — why don’t you just let our conference make that decision?”
The push and pull over whether Division III is imposing appropriate restrictions might merely be regarded as an ongoing household quarrel — except for a troublemaking intruder knocking on the door.
With a membership approaching 450 institutions and a mostly uninterrupted history of continuing growth, the division faces increasing pressure to at least consider dividing itself into more manageable units, or perhaps support the creation of a fourth division that could offer a distinctive approach to accommodating philosophical, budgetary or competitive interests.
An NCAA Executive Committee working group, prompted by concern about the Association-wide impact of membership growth and its effects in each of the three divisions, will begin work next month to propose approaches to dealing with the issue — and specifically is slated to attempt to propose criteria that Division III could consider for subdividing itself or that a fourth division could use to attract members.
McHugh chairs a Division III panel formed in January to advise the Division III governance structure — and the division’s five representatives on the Executive Committee’s working group. He acknowledged the division group is discussing the possibility that reduced restrictions might be an appealing criterion for a subdivision or new division and are still considering the potential appeal of any criterion, including fewer rules.
McHugh and Martin, who also serves on the panel, agree that while fewer restrictions may appeal to a significant segment of the current Division III membership, other factors also will influence any decisions to select one division or subdivision over another.
“We have to start someplace, and it’s just for discussion purposes, but I know that where you stand on restrictions sometimes depends on who you want to be associated with,” McHugh said.
“If you say, one group is going to be more restrictive, and here’s the (less restrictive) group, and I don’t like some of (the less restrictive) group, I’m not going to cling as tightly to my philosophy as to being with the other guys. If I have to be more restrictive, at least the bottom line is, everybody else has to abide by those rules.”
“We’ve talked about a ‘less restrictive’ or ‘more restrictive’ approach,” Martin said. “It may make sense for those who (believe that Division III is) overregulating. But I’m not a fan of taking a cut-and-dried approach. It seems like an appropriate place to start, and see where the chips may fall.”
Common ground
If the membership could somehow ignore or wish away the pressures stemming from growth, it seems possible to some that Division III as it exists today could continue to find plenty of common ground not only philosophically, but even competitively and financially — even as it continues (sometimes noisily) to debate the degree to which it will govern that ground into the future.
“It may well be that the pendulum is swinging toward a more complex set of regulations, but that doesn’t mean the pendulum won’t come back,” Gleason said. “Over the course of time we’d catch ourselves and make things simpler.
“There are enough checks and balances, and the pendulum goes both ways to the point where I’m not concerned about the long haul.”
Harper points to the large majorities of support for most elements of the recent Future of Division III package as evidence that the membership generally supports the current level of restriction in the areas of financial aid, playing and practice seasons, and eligibility.
“I was involved in amateurism discussions (leading to adoption of legislation in 2002), which were very unpopular; I was involved in playing and practice seasons discussions (during the Future of Division III initiative), which were very unpopular,” Harper recalled from his stint as a Management Council member. “There are some things where there’s going to be a level of discomfort when you sit and talk about them.
“But, to the best of my knowledge, amateurism hasn’t played out to be a problem. I don’t think the actual implementation of the playing and practice seasons has been a problem, either.”
McHugh notes that student-athletes have become influential — working through the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee — in shaping the level of restriction. Although the membership doesn’t always agree with the SAAC viewpoint in imposing limits (for example, the committee opposed the elimination of redshirting), it readily adopts restrictions advocated by student-athletes once it is persuaded it is in student-athletes’ best interests.
“The eight-hour restriction on nontraditional-season competition (approved at this year’s Convention) really got its legs from the testimony from student-athletes about what is going on out there,” McHugh said.
“I don’t get the sense we’ve (exceeded the balance) between institutional control vs. NCAA regulations or restrictions,” he continued. “I think the balance is appropriate, even though some of the things in effect are things that we (TCNJ, a member of the New Jersey Athletic Conference) didn’t vote for. But they’re not things that aren’t within the scope of what Division III should be looking at.
“Everybody’s going to have degrees of agreement or disagreement, but if in fact the membership approves it, it probably is appropriate.”
While the membership is the ultimate source of Division III bylaws, through its actions at the annual Convention, a seven-member committee assisted by NCAA staff monitors the impact of rules year-round — and occasionally initiates actions to remove rules from the Manual.
The Division III Interpretations and Legislation Committee’s duties include reviewing interpretive requests from the membership, governance structure and membership services staff.
The committee routinely issues official interpretations on Division III legislation, recommends legislative changes to the Division III Management Council, reviews staff interpretations, and oversees editorial revisions to the Manual.
It also occasionally initiates deregulatory efforts, resulting in simplification and sometimes elimination of rules.
“We’re not there to create new (rules); we’re there more to deregulate, to be honest,” said Robert Coleman, director of athletics at Whittier College and chair of the committee. “If there are things that aren’t needed, we look at those things. We deal with the issues as they come to us.”
Coleman cited a committee effort in 2005 to review recruiting, eligibility and financial aid bylaws.
“We looked at how we could condense things,” he said. “We looked at whether things are needed, or not needed. I thought we did a pretty good job of condensing some stuff.”
Another committee responsibility is to recommend incorporations of official interpretations into the Manual, and it was that role that resulted in a discussion during the January Convention of what apparently has been an overlooked rule in effect since 1991 that prohibits institutional personnel from participating in privately owned camps or clinics (including as speakers as clinicians) where prospective student-athletes are employed.
ILC recommended and the Division III Management and Presidents Councils agreed to incorporate into the Manual an interpretation designed to clarify conditions under which athletics department personnel may participate in such events, but the incorporation was rejected at the Convention — apparently because it was seen as an attempt to impose new restrictions.
One result of the discussion is that institutions are indicating that the practice of employing prospective student-athletes at private campus where institutional personnel are present is widespread — and enforcement of the rule could put some camps that rely on prospects as employees out of business.
“We look at things that come back up, when it looks like it’s a major thing throughout the country that the NCAA is hearing about,” Coleman said. “We went back and looked at the private camp issue after the Convention — we’re not just letting that go and not dealing with it. We’ve revisited it.”
The committee will forward a recommendation to the Management Council in April to eliminate the restriction (except for elite-level events).
In recent years, ILC also has become an important source of increased membership education regarding bylaws and their application in Division III. The committee works with staff to prepare the annual “Q&A” document that answers questions about proposed legislation at the annual Convention, and also uses other outlets like e-mailed newsletters to provide information.
“I don’t think there are a lot of folks who go onto LSDBi (the Association’s online legislative database), so it’s important that we get information out there, and we serve the membership in that capacity,” Coleman said.
The committee and the staff are receiving high marks recently for educational efforts, as are other recent initiatives to improve communication with the membership.
“The governance structure has made remarkable improvements through the years in communicating with us,” said Tim Gleason, commissioner of the Ohio Athletic Conference. “We get a Q&A on every piece of legislation. We’ve got the virtual focus groups. We get governance booklets for our fall (conference) meetings. We have individual visits by Management Council members to conferences. These are all governance improvements in the last five years, and they’ve been extensive and beneficial.”
Those words are music to Coleman’s ears.
“Excellent!” he said. “And you know what? I hope we can continue with those things…. There are rules and bylaws that people have questions about, and that’s really our job — to make it a little clearer.”
But recent disagreements on issues that are smaller in scope but vitally important to one or more Division III constituencies — ranging from whether limits should be placed on the use of male practice players in women’s basketball to a recent question of whether athletics employees should be permitted to work at private camps where prospective student-athletes also work — frequently are focusing on another concern.
More and more often, athletics administrators and coaches are responding that some recent actions constitute “overregulation” in Division III. And occasionally, such concerns are being voiced about bigger issues, too.
“You hear it,” agreed Kevin McHugh, executive director of student development and campus programs at The College of New Jersey and vice chair of the Division III Management Council. “You tend to hear it on the heels of the Convention; it’s a function of timing as much as anything else.”
But explicit use of the word “overregulation” actually made a debut of sorts during the most recent Convention.
Debates in recent years rarely if ever have hinged — specifically, at least — on the complaint that Division III is adopting too many new rules. A review of transcripts from recent years’ Convention business sessions reveals no use of the word (or of another recently coined phrase, “overlegislating”) — until this year.
In Orlando, one delegate complained of overregulation in opposing a proposal — ultimately adopted — that prohibits a range of university personnel from wagering on sports. Similar complaints, if not the specific word, were raised during debates over other issues.
The growing frequency of objections to too many rules may primarily be a function of increased channels for expressing such concerns. For example, a recent Division III “virtual focus group” discussion solicited reactions on whether to study possible limitations on recruiting activities. While a number of respondents favored exploring the idea, others urged that the discussion be abandoned.
Reasons for opposition ranged from concerns tied to effect on enrollment or preserving competitive equity to this simply stated objection from an athletics director: “One of the beauties of Division III athletics is the freedom from all of the bureaucracy of Divisions I and II.”
Some observers point out there always has been — and probably always will be — at least a segment of the Division III membership that objects to one restriction or another.
“I hear we’re overregulating on various issues or topics,” said Chris Martin, Division III Membership Committee chair and commissioner of the College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin. “I don’t think it’s changed any over the past couple of years — it’s neither increased nor decreased.”
However, another observer thinks the level of concern — if not the level of complaining — is growing.
“I sense (the membership is) concerned about it a lot more,” said Tim Gleason, commissioner of the Ohio Athletic Conference and a member of the Division III Management Council who once served on the Division III Interpretations and Legislation Committee.
“We have a great many young part-time or volunteer coaches who start their careers in the Division III ranks, and the more complex our rules are, the more vulnerability we have of breaking them, and the greater our educational burden becomes,” he said. “That’s the concern I’m hearing, that people are just more afraid now of breaking rules because they’re more complex.”
Drilling down
It’s a given that Division III institutions support the division’s philosophy statement — an assumption that is supported by the overwhelming approval that typically has been recorded for recent amendments to that document.
But drill down into the bylaws of the Division III Manual that seek to put those philosophies into practice, and things get stickier.
Ask Division III conference or institutional administrators what aspects of intercollegiate athletics should be regulated, and most readily agree on financial aid restrictions. But even as they continue by listing recruiting, playing and practice seasons, and eligibility, they’ll usually quickly qualify those suggestions by noting that not everybody agrees how broadly Division III should govern in those areas.
“It’s more a practical problem than a philosophical problem,” Gleason said. “When we make legislation, it’s easy to get caught up in leveling the playing field among institutions, (rather than acting) philosophically to the benefit of the student-athlete. The temptation to want to regulate each other is strong, and as a result, the tendency is for legislation to go down that path rather than down a philosophical path.”
Gleason suggested that budget management may be just as much of a motivating factor for pursuing restrictions as maintaining competitive equity. John Harper, director of athletics at Bridgewater State College and a former member of the Division III Management Council, agreed, saying most of the complaints he hears about overregulation are “budget-driven.”
“That’s where some of the frustration comes from,” Harper said. “I don’t even know that it necessarily has to do with whether the rules are good, bad or indifferent — it’s just the frustration of, here’s another regulation that we have to enforce, and how am I going to afford to do it?”
Harper says concern about competitive equity isn’t so much a factor in his area (Bridgewater State competes in the Massachusetts State College Athletic Conference), but other administrators think it is the major motivation for seeking restrictions.
“Many of these pieces of legislation we’ve had over the past couple of years deal with competitive equity — the opportunity to compete on the proverbial level playing field,” said Martin, who as a former NCAA membership services staff member served as Division III legislative liaison. “Now, many people don’t bring that up, and I’m not saying it’s the sole reason, but when you get down to it, when people are opposed to legislation, it’s a matter of competitive equity.”
Sometimes, a segment of the membership objects to restrictions because they are seen as interfering with institutional initiatives, such as using sports to attract more students to a campus. In such cases, restrictions may be perceived as contradictory to a Division III philosophy that advocates institutional autonomy.
“What is overregulation? I don’t know,” Harper said. “For some folks, any regulation is going to be overregulation. One of the beauties of Division III is institutional control — but therein lies room for problems, as well.”
‘Splitting hairs’
Some frustration also almost certainly arises from the complexity of otherwise widely supported restrictions.
Gleason points to two current restrictions — calling them “areas where we split hairs too finely” — that he believes can be simplified without harming the legislation’s intent.
“One, (preseason) football practice, is a new example. It is much more complicated than it needs to be,” he said. “It seems to me if we all start practice on the 13th Sunday before selection Sunday, then simply add your five weeks of nontraditional, you get your 18 total weeks. What you gain in simplicity from the deregulation effort far outweighs whatever is gained by the complexity of the count-back system.
“Every year, I need to go over this with each of my schools, as to when each one can start. They’re all paranoid about, can I start this day or that day? Do I count two or one practices? Here’s my start date for classes — does the date immediately preceding the sixth day of the week have to be a two- or a one-practice day? This is crazy stuff.”
He also targets old bylaws governing official and unofficial visits — and specifically, varying restrictions on who may receive complimentary game admissions during a visit — for reconsideration. (Gleason believes all such situations should be handled the same way through one “recruiting visits” section in the Manual.)
Gleason said complicated rules almost always arise from “noble” intentions, and sometimes serve a purpose that justifies the complexity.
“The financial aid path we’ve taken (requiring institutions to demonstrate by reporting data that student-athletes receive comparable aid to other students on campus) is a long time coming, and well worth it. We’ve added complexity, but it was done for a great cause…. The football example is one where we’ve added complexity, and the price isn’t worth paying.”
The diversity factor
While the restrictions Gleason cited and others like them may be aggravating for administrators and coaches, they generally don’t symbolize fundamental splits in the Division III membership over whether playing and practice seasons should be limited, or whether recruiting is inappropriate.
Martin, however, thinks that Division III’s size and diversity also is a key to understanding why segments of the membership may complain about overregulation — even as those factors also help explain splits over recently contentious major issues like elimination of redshirting and restrictions on the nontraditional season.
“It’s putting what we have on paper and what we adhere to as a division more to a test when we talk about some of those issues that may divide the membership, or even segment the membership into smaller pieces — not into A and B, but one, two, three and four,” he said. “It becomes a test of the philosophy, and what we adhere to, whether it be financial aid, playing and practice seasons, redshirting, eligibility — you can just continue right down the list.
“When push comes to shove on these questions, you’re going to get different opinions because the membership is so diverse. There are so many schools that are so different from everybody else that it’s hard for all to come together on common ground. It’s a second argument: Rather than just saying we disagree, because we’re creating legislation, we’re saying it’s overregulating — why don’t you just let our conference make that decision?”
The push and pull over whether Division III is imposing appropriate restrictions might merely be regarded as an ongoing household quarrel — except for a troublemaking intruder knocking on the door.
With a membership approaching 450 institutions and a mostly uninterrupted history of continuing growth, the division faces increasing pressure to at least consider dividing itself into more manageable units, or perhaps support the creation of a fourth division that could offer a distinctive approach to accommodating philosophical, budgetary or competitive interests.
An NCAA Executive Committee working group, prompted by concern about the Association-wide impact of membership growth and its effects in each of the three divisions, will begin work next month to propose approaches to dealing with the issue — and specifically is slated to attempt to propose criteria that Division III could consider for subdividing itself or that a fourth division could use to attract members.
McHugh chairs a Division III panel formed in January to advise the Division III governance structure — and the division’s five representatives on the Executive Committee’s working group. He acknowledged the division group is discussing the possibility that reduced restrictions might be an appealing criterion for a subdivision or new division and are still considering the potential appeal of any criterion, including fewer rules.
McHugh and Martin, who also serves on the panel, agree that while fewer restrictions may appeal to a significant segment of the current Division III membership, other factors also will influence any decisions to select one division or subdivision over another.
“We have to start someplace, and it’s just for discussion purposes, but I know that where you stand on restrictions sometimes depends on who you want to be associated with,” McHugh said.
“If you say, one group is going to be more restrictive, and here’s the (less restrictive) group, and I don’t like some of (the less restrictive) group, I’m not going to cling as tightly to my philosophy as to being with the other guys. If I have to be more restrictive, at least the bottom line is, everybody else has to abide by those rules.”
“We’ve talked about a ‘less restrictive’ or ‘more restrictive’ approach,” Martin said. “It may make sense for those who (believe that Division III is) overregulating. But I’m not a fan of taking a cut-and-dried approach. It seems like an appropriate place to start, and see where the chips may fall.”
Common ground
If the membership could somehow ignore or wish away the pressures stemming from growth, it seems possible to some that Division III as it exists today could continue to find plenty of common ground not only philosophically, but even competitively and financially — even as it continues (sometimes noisily) to debate the degree to which it will govern that ground into the future.
“It may well be that the pendulum is swinging toward a more complex set of regulations, but that doesn’t mean the pendulum won’t come back,” Gleason said. “Over the course of time we’d catch ourselves and make things simpler.
“There are enough checks and balances, and the pendulum goes both ways to the point where I’m not concerned about the long haul.”
Harper points to the large majorities of support for most elements of the recent Future of Division III package as evidence that the membership generally supports the current level of restriction in the areas of financial aid, playing and practice seasons, and eligibility.
“I was involved in amateurism discussions (leading to adoption of legislation in 2002), which were very unpopular; I was involved in playing and practice seasons discussions (during the Future of Division III initiative), which were very unpopular,” Harper recalled from his stint as a Management Council member. “There are some things where there’s going to be a level of discomfort when you sit and talk about them.
“But, to the best of my knowledge, amateurism hasn’t played out to be a problem. I don’t think the actual implementation of the playing and practice seasons has been a problem, either.”
McHugh notes that student-athletes have become influential — working through the Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee — in shaping the level of restriction. Although the membership doesn’t always agree with the SAAC viewpoint in imposing limits (for example, the committee opposed the elimination of redshirting), it readily adopts restrictions advocated by student-athletes once it is persuaded it is in student-athletes’ best interests.
“The eight-hour restriction on nontraditional-season competition (approved at this year’s Convention) really got its legs from the testimony from student-athletes about what is going on out there,” McHugh said.
“I don’t get the sense we’ve (exceeded the balance) between institutional control vs. NCAA regulations or restrictions,” he continued. “I think the balance is appropriate, even though some of the things in effect are things that we (TCNJ, a member of the New Jersey Athletic Conference) didn’t vote for. But they’re not things that aren’t within the scope of what Division III should be looking at.
“Everybody’s going to have degrees of agreement or disagreement, but if in fact the membership approves it, it probably is appropriate.”
Division III committee in place to rein in legislative growth
While the membership is the ultimate source of Division III bylaws, through its actions at the annual Convention, a seven-member committee assisted by NCAA staff monitors the impact of rules year-round — and occasionally initiates actions to remove rules from the Manual.
The Division III Interpretations and Legislation Committee’s duties include reviewing interpretive requests from the membership, governance structure and membership services staff.
The committee routinely issues official interpretations on Division III legislation, recommends legislative changes to the Division III Management Council, reviews staff interpretations, and oversees editorial revisions to the Manual.
It also occasionally initiates deregulatory efforts, resulting in simplification and sometimes elimination of rules.
“We’re not there to create new (rules); we’re there more to deregulate, to be honest,” said Robert Coleman, director of athletics at Whittier College and chair of the committee. “If there are things that aren’t needed, we look at those things. We deal with the issues as they come to us.”
Coleman cited a committee effort in 2005 to review recruiting, eligibility and financial aid bylaws.
“We looked at how we could condense things,” he said. “We looked at whether things are needed, or not needed. I thought we did a pretty good job of condensing some stuff.”
Another committee responsibility is to recommend incorporations of official interpretations into the Manual, and it was that role that resulted in a discussion during the January Convention of what apparently has been an overlooked rule in effect since 1991 that prohibits institutional personnel from participating in privately owned camps or clinics (including as speakers as clinicians) where prospective student-athletes are employed.
ILC recommended and the Division III Management and Presidents Councils agreed to incorporate into the Manual an interpretation designed to clarify conditions under which athletics department personnel may participate in such events, but the incorporation was rejected at the Convention — apparently because it was seen as an attempt to impose new restrictions.
One result of the discussion is that institutions are indicating that the practice of employing prospective student-athletes at private campus where institutional personnel are present is widespread — and enforcement of the rule could put some camps that rely on prospects as employees out of business.
“We look at things that come back up, when it looks like it’s a major thing throughout the country that the NCAA is hearing about,” Coleman said. “We went back and looked at the private camp issue after the Convention — we’re not just letting that go and not dealing with it. We’ve revisited it.”
The committee will forward a recommendation to the Management Council in April to eliminate the restriction (except for elite-level events).
In recent years, ILC also has become an important source of increased membership education regarding bylaws and their application in Division III. The committee works with staff to prepare the annual “Q&A” document that answers questions about proposed legislation at the annual Convention, and also uses other outlets like e-mailed newsletters to provide information.
“I don’t think there are a lot of folks who go onto LSDBi (the Association’s online legislative database), so it’s important that we get information out there, and we serve the membership in that capacity,” Coleman said.
The committee and the staff are receiving high marks recently for educational efforts, as are other recent initiatives to improve communication with the membership.
“The governance structure has made remarkable improvements through the years in communicating with us,” said Tim Gleason, commissioner of the Ohio Athletic Conference. “We get a Q&A on every piece of legislation. We’ve got the virtual focus groups. We get governance booklets for our fall (conference) meetings. We have individual visits by Management Council members to conferences. These are all governance improvements in the last five years, and they’ve been extensive and beneficial.”
Those words are music to Coleman’s ears.
“Excellent!” he said. “And you know what? I hope we can continue with those things…. There are rules and bylaws that people have questions about, and that’s really our job — to make it a little clearer.”
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy