National Collegiate Athletic Association

NCAA News Archive - 2010

back to 2010 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index

Apr 30, 2010 11:20:35 AM

A proposal to tighten requirements for nontraditional courses used to satisfy Division II academic initial-eligibility standards encountered headwinds Thursday from the Division II Presidents Council.

The proposal, which would amend Bylaw 14.3.1.2.2, would require any nontraditional course used to satisfy initial eligibility to demonstrate ongoing access between the instructor and the student, with teaching, evaluation and assistance provided to the student through the duration of the course. A defined time for completion of the course would be required, and the student's work (for example, exams, papers and other assignments) would be available for review and validation by the NCAA Eligibility Center.

The rule is identical to one scheduled to go on the books in Division I in August, but the Division II presidents balked at whether the measure is too broad a solution to what currently is a narrow problem.

Proponents said that although abuse of nontraditional high school courses currently is low among Division II prospects, the incidence has been increasing in Division I, where the core-course requirement is higher. Since the Division II core-course requirement will increase to 16 in 2013, those supporting the change said it would have good preventive value for Division II.

However, other presidents made a distinction between nontraditional courses and courses that are taught through nontraditional means. Others were concerned about the ramifications of not allowing courses provided by accredited institutions (some of the courses in question have been made available through an online high school offered by an accredited university).

None of the presidents appeared to object to the spirit of the proposal, which is to ensure that incoming student-athletes have the ability to persist toward graduation. Rather than referring the matter back to the Division II Academic Requirements Committee, which would have made consideration at the 2011 Convention impossible, the presidents chose to table the discussion until their June meeting. At that time, they will get a further explanation from the Eligibility Center and national office staff members with specialized knowledge of the issue.

Life in the Balance

The presidents also took a pass at Phase II of the Life in the Balance initiative.

Because of time constraints, they were not able to complete a review of what had been discussed at the Management Council meeting earlier in the month, but they get far enough to express concerns about any attempts to expand competition in the nonchampionship segment.

Council chair Drew Bogner, president of Molloy, said the group's attitude was simply a continuation of what had been expressed at the January Convention, when Phase I was approved. At that time, the Council indicated it was well aware of the importance of the nonchampionship segment to student-athletes and was not interested in considering any proposals to severely compromise or even eliminate a unique element of Division II membership.

"Many presidents said we liked Phase I, we don't think it's gone far enough, and we said there will be other things addressed in Phase II," Bogner said. "And many of them – I'm saying a dozen presidents – said we're going to talk about the nonchampionship segment.

"So there is a sense that this is something we're going to look at. And I'm sure from their perspective, ‘look at it' meant how necessary and how much time does it (the nonchampionship segement) take up and is it appropriate for us to be doing it in the way we're doing it?"

Management Council chair Kathleen Brasfield, director of athletics at Angelo State, said the Management Council was not interested in expanding the nonchampionship segment but that it did believe it needed to be maintained as an important part of the Division II experience.

The presidents reviewed one piece of Phase I legislation – the holiday "dead period" between December 20 and 26 when no athletically related activities can occur in winter sports. While Council members acknowledged sentiment for more flexibility, they agreed that any changes would be premature at this time.

Other actions

In other actions, the Presidents Council:

• Noted that funds previously paid to reimburse registration fees Division II game officials participating in the Arbiter officiating-improvement system will be redirected to the enhancement fund. Conferences will be expected to use the money for officiating improvement, including use of the Arbiter program, if they choose.
• Noted that registration for the June 18-19 Division II Presidents and Chancellors Summit in Indianapolis now stands at 140, indicating that eventual attendance will be about the same as for the two previous Summits.
• Reviewed a "Chancellors and Presidents Athletics Oversight Summary," a document designed to protect institutions in the ISSG process by giving chief executives a better oversight tool.
• Agreed to sponsor seven pieces of legislation, including one that would allow for audits of ISSGs, minimum financial-aid reports and minimum sports-sponsorship reports. This tool will be shared at the June 18-19 Division II Presidents and Chancellors Summit.