The Division I Board of Directors will consider a series of reforms to modify the recruiting process in men’s basketball at its meeting this Thursday in Indianapolis.

The presidents also will receive a final report from the Basketball Academic Enhancement Group with recommendations to enhance the academic performance of student-athletes in the sport.

The Board will be asked to introduce proposals into the 2009-10 legislative cycle that would address problems in both areas. The enhancement group’s proposals will include:

• A mandatory summer academic preparation and college acclimatization model that includes an assessment of all incoming freshmen and transfers and the requirement of appropriate support/summer school sessions. The proposal would allow student-athletes who enroll in a summer session the opportunity to practice with a coach. Schools without summer school would be exempt.
• A revised playing-and-practice-season model that reduces the number of regular-season games to 28 (or 26 plus a multiple-team event) and provides a “staggered” schedule for the start of team practice beginning October 1 (four of the eight allowable hours devoted to practice the first week, increasing to the current 20-hour week beginning October 15).
• The opportunity for institutions to pay for travel expenses to and from official visits for the parents or legal guardians of a men’s basketball student-athlete.
• A change in the counter status for men’s basketball student-athletes on athletically related financial aid who wish to stay at an institution after a coach’s departure, but not participate in basketball. The proposal would allow student-athletes to remain on aid and graduate but not count toward financial aid team limits.
• Not allowing more than two physical education credit hours to fulfill the two-year college transfer requirements (or up to the minimum number required for degrees in the subject).

The proposals are the result of nearly two years of work by the BAEG, a consortium of men’s basketball coaches, faculty athletics representatives, athletics administrators and college presidents formed by the late NCAA President Myles Brand to develop strategies to enhance the academic performance of men’s basketball student-athletes.

The presidents will also hear from a group of Division I commissioners and NCAA enforcement staff representatives about a plan to prohibit the provision of money to people associated with prospective student-athletes in men’s basketball. Conference USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky, Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany and Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive will ask the Board to adopt a series of reforms they believe will clean up a recruiting environment that Delany described as “chaos.”

The Collegiate Commissioners Association and the National Association of Basketball Coaches board of directors have endorsed the plan.

The plan will be presented in four tiers, including the adoption of a series of interpretations that would curb compensatory relationships with people associated with prospects and suspend coaches who violate those rules. The initial recommendations would affect:

• Employment relating to noncoaching staff positions
• Employment at camps and clinics
• Payment of consulting fees
• Subscriptions to recruiting services with limited value
• Donations to nonprofits
• 1-900 numbers for recruiting contact

The Board will also be asked to introduce legislation into the 2009-10 legislative cycle to further address:

• Noncoaching staff hiring practices
• Institutional camp/clinic employment
• Institutional camp operation
• Nonscholastic events on campus
• Payment of consulting fees

If the Board agrees to sponsor any of the men’s basketball proposals, they will become part of the regular 2009-10 cycle, with initial consideration and votes from the Division I Legislative Council at the 2010 NCAA Convention in January.

In other business, the Board will also review the latest revenue and expenses report the Association released last week. The report revealed a slight moderation in the rate of spending in the aggregate within Division I and a slowing resource gap between institutions.