REPORT OF THE SEPTEMBER 25-27, 2002 MEETING OF THE

(3) Proposal No. 02-24-A-1 ? Eligibility ? Satisfactory Progress ? Fulfillment of Minimum Grade-Point Average and Timing of Certification.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet recommends that the Management Council not support Proposal No. 02-24-A-1, which would require a student-athlete entering his or third year of enrollment to achieve 100 percent of the cumulative minimum grade-point average necessary to graduate from the student-athlete?s institution and to require an institution to conduct a mid-year certification of its student-athletes not later than January 15. [For 1, against 33]

(b) Rationale. The academic consultants do not support the identification of a specific date as a deadline for mid-year eligibility certification. Further, the consultants have recommended an amendment (Proposal No. 02-24-A-2) to the minimum grade-point average that would require a student-athlete entering his or her third year of collegiate enrollment to present a minimum grade-point average that equals 95 percent (as opposed to 100 percent) of the cumulative minimum grade-point average required for graduation from the institution.

(4) Proposal No. 02-24-A-2 ? Eligibility ? Satisfactory Progress ? Fulfillment of Degree Requirements and Minimum Grade-Point Average.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-24-A-2, which would require the following:

(i.) A student-athlete entering his or her second year of collegiate enrollment must present a cumulative grade-point average that equals 90 percent of the cumulative minimum grade-point average required for graduation from the institution.

(ii.) A student-athlete entering his or her third year of collegiate enrollment must present a cumulative grade-point average that equals 95 percent of the cumulative minimum grade-point average required for graduation from the institution.

(iii.) A student-athlete entering his or her fourth or subsequent year of collegiate enrollment must present a cumulative minimum grade-point average that equals 100 percent of the cumulative minimum grade-point average required for graduation from the institution.

(b) Rationale. The academic consultants believe the minimum grade-point-average requirement should be based on the institution?s overall grade-point-average requirement for graduation (as opposed to the grade-point average required by the student-athlete?s specific degree program). In addition, the consultants recommend modifying the grade-point-average requirement so that student-athletes must achieve a minimum grade-point average of 90 percent, 95 percent and 100 percent of the institution?s overall cumulative grade-point average required for graduation entering the student-athlete?s second, third, fourth and subsequent years of collegiate enrollment, respectively. Research indicates that amending the legislation from a 100 percent to 95 percent grade-point-average requirement entering year three decreases the number of false negatives (student-athletes who are rendered ineligible by the rule, but who ultimately graduate) with limited effect on the anticipated graduation rate.

[Note: The cabinet recommends that the Management Council withdraw Proposal No. 02-24-A (as amended by Proposal No. 02-24-A-2).] [For 28, against 4]

(5) Proposal No. 02-24-B-1 ? Eligibility ? Satisfactory Progress ? Fulfillment of Minimum Grade-Point Average.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet recommends that the Management Council not support Proposal No. 02-24-B-1, which would require a student-athlete entering his or her third year of collegiate enrollment to achieve 100 percent of the cumulative minimum grade-point average necessary to graduate from the student-athlete?s institution. [For 1, against 33]

(b) Rationale. The academic consultants are supportive of the concept that would base the minimum grade-point-average requirement on the institution?s overall grade-point-average requirement for graduation (as opposed to the grade-point-average required by the student-athlete?s specific degree program). However, the consultants support a separate amendment (02-24-B-2) that would require a student-athlete entering his or her third year of collegiate enrollment to present a cumulative grade-point average that equals 95 percent (as opposed to 100 percent) of the cumulative minimum grade-point average required for graduation from the institution.

(6) Proposal No. 02-24-B-2 ? Eligibility ? Satisfactory Progress ? Fulfillment of Minimum Grade-Point Average.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-24-B-2, which would establish the following requirements:

(b) Rationale. The academic consultants believe the minimum grade-point-average requirement should be based on the institution?s overall grade-point average requirement for graduation (as opposed to the grade-point average required by the student-athlete?s specific degree program). In addition, the consultants recommend modifying the grade-point-average requirement so that student-athletes must achieve a minimum grade-point average of 90 percent, 95 percent and 100 percent of the institution?s overall cumulative grade-point average required for graduation entering the student-athlete?s second, third, fourth and subsequent years of collegiate enrollment, respectively. Research indicates that amending the legislation from a 100 percent to 95 percent grade-point-average requirement entering year three decreases the number of false negatives (student-athletes who are rendered ineligible by the rule, but who ultimately graduate) with limited effect on the anticipated graduation rate.

[Note: The cabinet unanimously voted to support Proposal No. 02-24-B (as amended by Proposal No. 02-24-B-2) as opposed to Proposal No. 02-24-A (as amended by Proposal No. 02-24-A-2).]

(7) Proposal No. 02-66 ? Eligibility ? Graduate Student ? Six Credit Hours.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-66, which would require a graduate student who is otherwise eligible for regular season competition to have successfully completed a minimum of six semester or quarter hours of academic credit the preceding regular academic term in which the student-athlete has been enrolled as a graduate student at any collegiate institution. The proposal will become effective after the 2003 fall term and would be applicable to hours earned by graduate students during the fall 2003 term.

(b) Rationale. This proposal is part of a package of academic reform proposals developed by the Division I academic consultants. The consultants agree that the student-athletes should maintain continual academic progress regardless of whether the student-athlete is seeking an undergraduate or graduate degree. Further, student-athletes have indicated an interest in ensuring that other student-athletes, whom they compete with and against, are also fellow students. It is not reasonable to permit a student-athlete, even a graduate student-athlete, to compete after successfully completing less than six hours during the prior term.

(8) Proposal No. 02-67 ? Initial-Eligibility ? Requirements Applicable to Entering Freshmen.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-67, which specifies that a student-athlete shall meet the initial-eligibility requirements for a qualifier in effect at the time of the student-athlete?s initial, full-time enrollment at a collegiate institution. [For 30, against 2, abstain 2]

(b) Rationale. This proposal is one of a package of academic reform proposals developed by the academic consultants. Currently, prospective student-athletes may be certified using either the initial-eligibility standards in effect at the time of graduation or the standards in effect at the time of initial, full-time collegiate enrollment. If the proposed changes to the initial-eligibility standards are approved, this will require the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse to operate a dual system for certifying and reporting a prospective student athlete?s eligibility status. The dual system is more costly to operate and more confusing to report out to students, parents, high schools and NCAA member institutions. This proposal will simplify the clearinghouse operations and the understanding of the initial-eligibility requirements by prospective student-athletes, high-school guidance counselors and member institutions.

(9) Proposal No. 02-68 ? Eligibility ? Two-Year College Transfers ? Qualifier.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-68, which would permit a two-year college transfer student, who was a qualifier, to be eligible for competition at a Division I institution during the first academic year in residence, provided the student-athlete spent one full-time semester or quarter at the two-year college, presented a minimum cumulative grade-point average of 2.000 and satisfactorily completed 12 semester or quarter hours of transferable-degree credit for each full-time academic term of attendance at the two-year college. It should be noted that this proposal is applicable to students first entering an NCAA institution on a full-time basis on or after August 1, 2003.

(b) Rationale. This proposal emphasizes the philosophy that a two-year college transfer who was certified as a qualifier should mirror the academic progress of his or her Division I cohort. Such philosophy is reflected in the requirement that a student-athlete should maintain continual progress toward a degree by completing a minimum of 12 semester or quarter hours each term of full-time attendance.

(10) Proposal No. 02-69 ? Continuing Eligibility ? Students with Learning Disabilities ? Fourth Season of Competition.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-69, which specifies that a fourth season of intercollegiate competition shall be granted to a student-athlete with a diagnosed learning disability, provided the student-athlete has completed at least 80 percent of his or her designated degree program at the beginning of the fifth academic year following the student-athlete?s initial, full-time collegiate enrollment.

(b) Rationale. Current legislation permits a student-athlete with a learning disability, who is not a qualifier, to earn a fourth season of competition provided the student-athlete has satisfied specified conditions and has completed at least 75 percent of his or her degree program at the beginning of the fifth academic year following the student-athlete?s initial, full-time collegiate enrollment. If the proposal to increase the percentage-of-degree requirements is adopted, the percentage-of-degree requirements will change from 25/50/75 to 40/60/80. This proposal will ensure that there is continued consistency between the requirements for earning a fourth season of competition for a student with a learning disability and the required percentage-of-degree requirements at the beginning of the student-athlete?s fifth academic year.

(11) Proposal No. 02-70 ? Eligibility ? Satisfactory Progress ? Fulfillment of Credit-Hour Requirements ? Six Credit Hours.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-70, which would require a student-athlete to successfully complete six semester or quarter hours of academic credit the preceding regular academic term in which the student-athlete has been enrolled at any collegiate institution. The proposal would be effective following the conclusion of the 2003 fall term and would be applied to hours earned during the 2003 fall term.

(b) Rationale. This proposal is part of a package of academic reform proposals developed by the academic consultants. The requirement that all student-athletes complete six semester or quarter hours of academic credit the preceding regular academic term will better ensure that student-athletes are making appropriate progress towards a degree during each term of enrollment. Further, student-athletes have indicated an interest in ensuring that other student-athletes, whom they compete with and against, are also fellow students. It is not reasonable to permit a student-athlete to continue to compete after successfully completing less than six hours during the prior term.

(12) Proposal No. 02-71 ? Administrative Regulations ? Admissions and Graduation Rate Disclosure ? Annual Academic Progress Rate.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-71, which specifies that an institution shall not be eligible to enter a team or an individual competitor in an NCAA championship unless the institution has completed the Annual Academic Progress Rate (AAPR) on a survey form prescribed by the NCAA Division I Board of Directors.

(b) Rationale. The AAPR is the result of the Division I membership?s desire to develop a more accurate and realistic method of analyzing and reporting the academic performance of student-athletes on institutional sports teams. Such academic performance will be directly tied to an incentives/disincentives structure established by the Board of Directors that rewards sports teams that have demonstrated commitment towards the academic progress of student-athletes and penalized those that have failed to demonstrate such commitment.

(13) Proposal No. 02-72 ? Administrative Regulations ? Graduation Rate Disclosure ? NCAA Graduation Success Rate.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-72, which specifies that an institution shall not be eligible to enter a team or an individual competitor in an NCAA championship unless the institution has completed the NCAA Graduation Success Rate Report by the deadline established by the Board of Directors.

(b) Rationale. The NCAA Graduation Success Rate is the result of the Division I membership?s desire to develop a more accurate and realistic method of measuring, analyzing and reporting graduation rates for all student-athletes, including those student-athletes who subsequently transfer from a Division I institution.

b. Legislative ? Financial Aid Deregulation Proposals.

(1) Proposal No. 02-81 ? Financial Aid ? Countable Aid.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-81, which would specify that financial aid countable toward an institution?s team limits includes only institutional financial aid based on athletics ability, outside financial aid for which athletics participation is a major criterion (regardless of whether the student-athlete was recruited) and educational expenses awarded by the U.S. Olympic Committee or a U.S. national governing body (or, for international student-athletes, expenses awarded by the equivalent organization of a foreign country).

(b) Rationale. The NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Financial Aid, the entity that developed this deregulation proposal, believes that every student-athlete should have the opportunity to receive financial aid unrelated to athletics ability without adversely impacting the institution?s financial aid team limitations. This proposal significantly simplifies the administration of financial aid, but is not designed to alter the type of financial aid that may be used to satisfy Division I membership requirements.

(c) Budget Impact. Variable; nonathletics aid would no longer count in team equivalencies, thus, permitting institutions to award additional athletically related aid.

(2) Proposal No. 02-82 ? Financial Aid ? Counters.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council take no position on Proposal No. 02-82, but initially approve the proposal for the purpose of seeking membership comment. The proposal would specify that a student-athlete becomes a counter only when he or she receives institutional financial aid based on athletics ability, outside financial aid for which athletics participation is a major criterion or educational expenses awarded by the U.S. Olympic Committee or a U.S. national governing body (or, for international student-athletes, expenses awarded by the equivalent organization of a foreign country).

(b) Rationale. It is the opinion of the Subcommittee on Financial Aid that a student-athlete?s counter status should not be contingent on whether he or she has been recruited by the certifying institution. Under current regulations, some student-athletes must choose between participating in intercollegiate athletics and accepting aid from various sources that may count against the team limits simply because of the student-athlete?s recruited status. The financial aid regulations can be significantly simplified by treating recruited and nonrecruited student-athletes consistently.

(c) Budget Impact. Variable; nonathletics aid would not cause a student-athlete to become a counter, thus, permitting institutions to award additional athletically related aid.

(3) Proposal No. 02-83-A ? Financial Aid ? Individual Limitations.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council take no position on Proposal No. 02-83-A, but initially approve the proposal for the purpose of seeking membership comment. The proposal would establish a student-athlete?s individual financial limit as the cost of attendance and would specify that a student-athlete may receive institutional aid based on athletics ability, outside financial aid for which athletics participation is a major criterion and educational expenses awarded by the U.S. Olympic Committee or a U.S. national governing body (or, for international student-athletes, expenses awarded by the equivalent organization of a foreign country) up to the value of a full grant-in-aid. In addition, the student-athlete may receive any other financial aid unrelated to athletics ability up to the cost of attendance or the value of a full grant-in-aid plus a Pell Grant, whichever is greater. [Note: The cabinet, by a vote of 28-4, indicated a preference for Proposal No. 02-83-A as opposed to Proposal No. 02-83-B.]

(b) Rationale. The Subcommittee on Financial Aid believes that every student-athlete should have the opportunity to receive financial aid to cover his or her cost of attendance through a combination of permissible sources of financial aid, similar to the financial aid limits for the general student body. This proposal will not impact athletics budgets because a student-athlete may not receive athletically related financial aid in excess of a full grant-in-aid, just as current regulations stipulate.

(4) Proposal No. 02-83-B ? Financial Aid ? Individual Limitations.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council take no position on Proposal No. 02-83-B, but initially approved the proposal for purpose of seeking membership comment. The proposal would permit a student-athlete to receive financial aid from any and all sources up to the cost of attendance, including an institutional athletics scholarship equal to the student-athlete?s cost of attendance.

(b) Rationale. Proposal No. 02-83-B presents an alternative to Proposal No. 02-83-A by providing student-athletes the opportunity to receive funding to cover the cost of attendance through a combination of permissible sources of financial aid. In the spirit of deregulation, this proposal allows an institution the flexibility to award a student-athlete financial aid regardless of its relation to athletics ability or participation up to the value of the student-athlete?s cost of attendance.

(c) Budget Impact. Could result in significant increases to institutional athletics budgets based on the increase from the value of a full grant-in-aid to the cost of attendance.

c. Legislative ? Other Proposals.

(1) Proposal No. 99-27 ? Eligibility ? Seasons of Competition ? Basketball.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council not support Proposal No. 99-27, which would specify that an individual who does not enroll in a collegiate institution within one year following completion of secondary studies shall lose a season of competition for each year in which the individual has participated in organized basketball competition (except for military competition) subsequent to the one-year time period; further, an individual who engages in organized competition (except for military competition) subsequent to the one-year time period must fulfill one academic year in residence upon enrollment at an NCAA Division I institution.

(b) Rationale. Proposal No. 99-27 has been tabled for a significant time period pending final resolution of the vote on the Division I amateurism deregulation package. Since the Board of Directors recently defeated the proposed new organized competition rule (Proposal No. 99-106) and the Management Council recently issued a directive to the NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee for student-athletes who compete on professional teams, this proposal is no longer necessary. Further, it would create additional administrative burden and require all basketball student-athletes to be charged with seasons of competition for lower level competition and, thus, does not appropriately address the issues that exist in Division I basketball.

(2) Proposal No. 99-82 ? Eligibility ? Seasons of Competition.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council not support Proposal No. 99-82, which would require that any participation as an individual or a team representative in organized sports competition by a student during each 12-month period after the student's 19th birthday, and prior to enrollment at a collegiate institution, shall count as a season of competition in that sport; further, to except participation in high-school all-star contests from the application of the rule.

(b) Rationale. Proposal No. 99-82 has been tabled for a significant time period pending final resolution of the vote on the Division I amateurism deregulation package. Since the Board of Directors recently defeated the proposed new organized competition rule (Proposal No. 99-106) and the Management Council recently issued a directive to the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee for student-athletes who compete on professional teams, this proposal is no longer necessary.

(3) Proposal No. 01-18 ? Recruiting ? Evaluations.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council not support Proposal No. 01-18, which would permit an institutional coaching staff member to attend a national team or Olympic event (for observation purposes only) at any time, even if individuals of prospect age are members of the team. [Abstain 1]

(b) Rationale. The cabinet expressed concern that in some sports, there are multiple national teams, some of which participate in multiple events. Thus, observation of such events could provide a significant number of opportunities to evaluate involved prospective student-athletes.

(c) Budget Impact. The proposal would result in an increase in costs inasmuch it would permit additional opportunities to evaluate prospective student-athletes.

(4) Proposal No. 01-19 ? Recruiting ? Publicity.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council not support Proposal No. 01-19, which would permit an institutional coaching staff member, during a dead period, to serve as a broadcaster or commentator for events involving national teams, such as the Olympic games or world championships.

(b) Rationale. The cabinet expressed concern regarding the recruiting advantage gained by institutional coaching staff members who participate in such activities. It also noted that the proposal is contrary to the principle of the dead period, which is a period designed to preclude all interaction with and observation of prospective student-athletes.

(5) Proposal No. 01-76-1 ? Recruiting Materials.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council sponsor an amendment to Proposal No. 01-76 specifying that camp brochures be restricted to a single two-sided sheet, not to exceed 17 inches by 22 inches when opened in full, without restrictions in content or design. [For 32, against 2, abstain 0]

(b) Rationale. The proposed restriction is consistent with deregulation efforts and would decrease the amount of time and resources devoted by institutional, conference and NCAA staff members in interpreting and enforcing regulations related to camp brochures.

(6) Proposal No. 02-02-3 ? Eligibility Certification Form ? International Student-Athletes.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support an amendment to Proposal No. 02-02 (Proposal No. 02-02-3) to remove the requirement that the evaluation of an international basketball student-athlete?s amateur status shall be based on a guide to international amateurism standards. The cabinet continues to support the portion of the proposal that would require student-athletes to sign the International Student-Athlete Form prior to participating in competition (as opposed to practice).

(b) Rationale. The establishment of a guide to determine an international basketball student-athlete?s amateur status is neither practical nor economical, given the ever-changing structure of international sports systems. The Big East Conference, the original sponsors of Proposal No. 02-02, has acknowledged that the Web site established by the national office staff provides the information which the proposal sought to make accessible to the membership.

(7) Proposal No. 02-44 ? Recruiting ? Telephone Calls ? Women?s Basketball.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-44, which would reduce from four to three the number of permissible telephone calls with prospective women?s basketball student-athletes during the period of June 21-July 31.

(b) Rationale. A reduction in the number of telephone calls to prospective women?s basketball student-athletes will be less intrusive to prospects who are participating in competitive activities during July and provide more flexibility for such calls to be conducted during the month of June.

(8) Proposal No. 02-45 ? Recruiting ? Women?s Basketball ? Contacts.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-45, which would prohibit institutional staff members in attendance at nonscholastic certified events from having any communication with a prospect, the prospect?s relatives or legal guardians, the prospect?s coach, or any individual associated with the prospect as a result of the prospect?s participation in basketball during the time period in which the prospect is participating in a noninstitutional, organized certified event. Such a restriction would be applicable to all types of interaction (e.g., in-person contact, telephone calls, letters, facsimiles, pager).

(b) Rationale. This proposal is identical to legislation applicable in men?s basketball and serves to reinforce that a collegiate coach?s attendance at events during the evaluation period should be for observation only and not a venue whereby contacts with outside influences are designed to be made in an effort to recruit particular women?s basketball prospects. Such legislation should also create a less intrusive environment for prospects during the July evaluation period.

(9) Proposal No. 02-46 ? Amateurism ? Professional Draft ? Basketball ? Two-Year College Prospects.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-46, which would permit a currently enrolled prospective student-athlete attending a two-year collegiate institution to enter a professional league?s draft one time during his or her collegiate career without jeopardizing eligibility in that sport, provided the individual is not drafted by any team in that league and the individual declares his or her intention to resume intercollegiate participation within 30 days after the draft.

(b) Rationale. Currently, two-year college prospective student-athletes in the sport of men?s basketball are the only individuals who may not enter to enter the draft without immediate eligibility consequences. Recently, the membership approved legislation (Proposal No. 99-107) to permit prospective student-athletes to enter the draft. Further, current legislation permits an enrolled student-athlete to enter a professional league?s draft one time during his or her collegiate career without jeopardizing eligibility in that sport, provided the student-athlete is not drafted by any team in that league and the student-athlete declares his or her intention to resume intercollegiate basketball participation within 30 days after the draft. This proposal would provide an equitable opportunity for two-year college students by imposing a comparable standard that exists for currently enrolled student-athletes.

(10) Proposal No. 02-47 ? Eligibility ? Percentage-of-Degree Requirements ? National Service Academies.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-47, which specifies that a student-athlete who transfers to a national service academy is subject to the percentage-of-degree requirements only during the years of the student-athlete?s enrollment at the service academy.

(b) Rationale. Federal law specifies that students must attend a national service academy not less than eight full semesters, regardless of any prior enrollment or academic performance at another collegiate institution. The academies do not accept any credit from previously attended institutions and, thus, student-athletes who transfer to a service academy have no realistic opportunity to satisfy the continuing-eligibility regulations related to percentage-of-degree requirements.

(11) Proposal No. 02-49 ? Amateurism ? Professional Athletics Team.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-49, to specify that the list of actual and necessary expenses, as set for the in NCAA Bylaw 12.02.4-(a), shall include ?other reasonable expenses incidental to participation.?

(b) Rationale. This proposal broadens the list of actual and necessary expenses to include reasonable expenses. The cabinet believes that the current legislation is too restrictive and should permit a team to provide its players reasonable expenses incidental to participation on the particular team without being considered a professional team.

(12) Proposal No. 02-50 ? Personnel ? Certification to Recruit Off-Campus.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet recommends that the Management Council not support Proposal No. 02-50, which would specify that each member conference may establish procedures for administering the annual coaches certification examination. [For 7, against 28]

(b) Rationale. The cabinet expressed concern that permitting individual conferences to establish such procedures for administering the coaches certification examination could result in significant differences in how the conferences administer the examination. It noted that the conferences currently have the flexibility to authorize multiple individuals to administer the examination to avoid situations in which a single designated individual is not readily available to administer the examination.

(13) Proposal No. 02-51 ? Permissible Benefits ? Preseason Meals.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-51, which would permit an institution to provide an additional meal or snack to student-athletes during each day of the preseason practice period when classes are not in session.

(b) Rationale. Current NCAA rules permit unlimited hours of practice during the preseason practice period when classes are not in session. The current legislation permits three meals per day and identified nutritional supplements, but still may not provide for sufficient nutrition for student-athletes to maintain their health during this physically demanding period.

(c) Budget Impact. The cost of additional meals or snacks for all teams involved in preseason practice activities prior to the start of classes.

(14) Proposal No. 02-52 ? Personnel ? Off-Campus Contacts/Evaluations ? Division I-AA Football.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the NCAA Division I-AA Governance Committee support Proposal No. 02-52, which would permit, in Division I-AA football, an institution?s head coach to engage in off-campus recruiting activities at any time during a calendar week (Sunday-Saturday) during a permissible contact or evaluation period, provided no more than seven coaches (including the head coach) are engaged in off-campus recruiting activities at any one time during the calendar week.

(b) Rationale. This proposal provides greater flexibility in the recruiting process without resulting in additional coaches engaged in off-campus recruiting activities at any one time. The same legislation has been beneficial to Division I-A and is consistent with deregulation efforts, inasmuch as it provides consistency between the rules in Division I-A and Division I-AA.

(15) Proposal No. 02-64 ? Permissible Benefits ? Miscellaneous Benefits.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-64, which would permit a student-athlete to retain frequent flyer points and/or miles earned during team travel. [For 30, against 5]

(b) Rationale. Proposal No. 02-64 is consistent with deregulation efforts and is an opportunity to provide reasonable benefits to student-athletes. Student-athletes who travel by plane experience the same hardships as other travelers and, thus, should be permitted to take advantage of the frequent-flyer program. Since the majority of institutions are unable to incur the miles of the student-athletes, the miles are not being used and this benefit is not a cost issue for institutions. From a compliance standpoint, the need to monitor would decrease since the airlines will only credit miles actually earned. The cabinet noted that such a benefit is permissive in nature and would permit institutions to continue to implement policies applicable to the entire general student body.

(16) Proposal No. 02-65 ? Awards and Benefits ? Team Entertainment ? Vacation Periods.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-65, which would permit an institution to pay costs for reasonable entertainment associated with required practice during vacation periods (e.g. preseason), provided such entertainment occurs within a 30-mile radius of the institution?s campus or practice site and classes are not in session.

(b) Rationale. An institution currently is permitted to provide reasonable entertainment only in conjunction with an away-from-home contest. Institutions should be permitted to provide reasonable entertainment for student-athletes during a vacation period when student-athletes are required to be on campus and the general student body is not on campus.

(17) Proposal No. 02-73 ? Five-Year Rule ? Waivers ? Service Academies.

(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council support Proposal No. 02-73, which specifies that the Stu